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?
My apologies. I should have provided some references. I consider it
rude when sites are referenced and no URL provided.
Here is one place where we discussed this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50611.html
Begin quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam
escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline
curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with
temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques. See my
reference in one of the above posts for an actual application where I
applied thermal decline curve measurement and estimated a complete
energy balance.
Ultimately, the best method involves simultaneous dual calorimetry
techniques which establish *total energy balances*, like that used by
Earthech International:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf
and which in the past has been provided free of charge. Earthtech
also has excellent equipment for measuring total electrical energy
in. The Rossi devices can be treated like black boxes, with no
knowledge of any trade secrets or internals required.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
end quote.
My reference to practical problems with an actual application of
isoperibolic calorimetry I had in 1997 was documented starting on
page 9 of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BlueAEH.pdf
which shows some basic amateur calorimetry, including use of a post
experiment temperature decline curve to estimate heat loss thorough
the container walls, a technique which might be useful applied to a
barrel calorimeter, though it is obviously best to insulate the
barrel. It was noted in the above study that use of dewar flask
provided far less exciting results. This is an indication of the
general weakness of the technique. It was also noted that there
were changing values of the W/(deg. C) calorimeter "constant" with
temperature for the cell, and that this could mean more mechanisms
affect heat loss at higher temperatures, e.g. evaporation and IR
radiation are more significant. Obtaining a brief decay curve at
high temperatures is not adequate for analysis. Good stirring and
mixing is also essential for obtaining a mean temperature of the
water during a run.
Just sparging steam into a bucket is a very inaccurate method.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
