So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: > He did it... > > > 2012/8/18 Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> > >> Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be >> sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an >> unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, >> and measure the difference using the same approach? >> >> Why do I even have to pose this question? >> >> Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the >> whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. >> >> Jeff >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* Robert Lynn **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W >>> excess…. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W.** >>> ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Nice work. Thanks. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of >>> insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much >>> more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a >>> nominally self-sustaining system?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Jones**** >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com > >
