On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that
other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and
publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have
already been discussed.»
And where they are discussed and by whom?
I discussed it in response to you if I recall, and provided a
reference to an actual application of a similar isoperibolic
calorimetry application, specifically one where a post experiment
temperature decline curve was determined, and the associated problems
noted.
There might be problems, and first is that steam can carry 10-20
times more heat than water coolant. But these are just problems
that can be solved with creativity.
Well, sure, if you competently design a calorimeter you can get rid
of a lot of problems ... but then it is no longer just sparging steam
into a bucket.
I am sure that these are not relevant obstacles by any means.
With your analysis, how do you explain up to 2.0°C temperature
anomaly above local boiling point? That was observed in December test.
—Jouni
The problem with such an "anomaly" is there is no confirming source.
It can be due to intermittent measurement error, such as momentary
contact with a metal surface whereby heat is transferred directly
through metal from the source to the thermometer. It can be a real
temperature rise due to pressure increase in the hose due to water
accumulation in the hose and the significant rise from the floor to
the drain. It might be due to momentary electrical contact problems,
corrosion and/or electro-chemical reactions. It could be due to
digitizer or computer problems, parts overheating or operated out of
spec. There are probably many other explanations to be ruled out as
well.
The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a
well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of
the device itself, preferably using dual methods. Then there is
little need for issues like this that involve a lot of guesswork.
Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of
discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress.
Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning
churning.
I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone
would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and
inexpensive science being applied. This is not a moon mission.
I expect Rossi could have had competent high quality calorimetry done
for free many months ago, and without divulging anything about his
device.
I find all this very depressing. Billions of people are likely going
to be affected by timely development of the LENR field. If the Rossi
thing is a bust it could cost a major setback for LENR research
support, and millions of lives.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
