On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2011/11/16 Mary Yugo <[email protected]>: > > The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the > > measuring method and equipment. I know of no other iron clad way to do > > that. Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple > > placement and pressure and endless others will continue. With a proper > > blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are > > untenable. It's ABSOLUTELY necessary. Any self respecting scientist > would > > require it. I have no idea why you can't grasp that. It's usual and > > standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters. It's done > every > > day! > > > > This is untrue, because blank run is trivial to falsify. It does not > improve the reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax. > Would you mind restating that another way? I can't understand. What do you mean in this context by "falsify"? I don't understand your objection. A blank run with an electrical heater providing power simply demonstrates that BOTH the measuring method AND the measuring instruments work properly. It accounts for the time constant of the system and also for any losses. Unless done badly, it HAS to do that. It does take time but not all that much because unlike the real run which go a very long time anyway, the calibration run only needs to go until things are relatively stable. If that seems too long, it can go until you can easily calculate where the time-temperature curves are going to flatten. This is standard stuff in large volume calorimeters. > Yet again it is far easier to do proper calibration of the > calorimetry. Not using time consuming blank run, because it does not > give us any increased accuracy of the measurements. > It does if the water doesn't all vaporize to steam or the thermocouples are placed in too warm a location to represent T-out. Why wouldn't it help in such cases? I understand you can also sparge all the steam in a water tank and eliminate some of the objections but Rossi has not done that either! And that can't run as long as other methods because the water will get too hot or the tank will have to be extremely large. I suppose you could heat up a swimming pool. That would be a good test (again with electrical heating calibration first -- this time to determine losses from the pool). > If we measure for the total enthalpy 25 MJ ± 5MJ and we measure for > the input energy using oscilloscope 5 MJ ± 50 kJ, then we get for the > excess heat 20 MJ ± 5 MJ. Blank run does not provide any increased > accuracy to our measurements, and we can just subtract the input > energy that was measured with accuracy of ±50kJ. That is, we know the > result of blank run a priori. > But that's the whole issue. You may not be measuring enthalpy by Rossi's methods. They may give a WRONG result! What about that is it that you can't understand? In FACT, the thermocouples could be misplaced and the water may not all be converted to steam (which is important is some experiments and not others). How would you know that without calibrating? Why would you want to avoid calibration unless you were faking it? Yeah, I know it takes time. Any idea how many person-hours have been wasted if Rossi's machine turns out to be bunk? > In science, we are only interested to determine the proper error > margins for the measurements. For example, that superluminal neutrino > was observed with probability of six sigma. > But that's what we're arguing about -- the error margin -- and you tell me you don't want to do a simple thing that tells you what it is? WHY? I know. It takes time. > But there is also the thing, that heat capacity is rather simple to > calculate if we know the metal mass and water storage capacity. > Yes but you don't know. You have no clue what it inside the finned contained inside the big E-cat. None whatsoever except what Rossi said. Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration with a blank? Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable? Even essential? I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the hydrogen issue and I understand there are other reasons the demo may be faked but the simple test I propose would remove a lot of not all of the uncertainty about the output heat measurement.
