Agree. No idea what's really going on. For example, the calibration numbers I posted came from a 1-bar 100% H calibration run. Are they now running 100%H or 75%H / 25%Ar in the cell? If the latter, is it enough to account for the apparent 5C degree difference? I'm not making any claims, that is for sure. Just posting data.
Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees >> larger than it was during calibration. > > > I suppose . . . if all of the temperature sensors show an increase except > T_Glassin, that sensor might be malfunctioning. But I doubt it. When a > sensor malfunctions it generally drifts, or it shows zero, or some random > number. It does not usually show the same value it did during calibration. > In this case, if the thing is malfunctioning it is too low. Meaning it > drifted down. It should keep going down, lower and lower. > > This is not good news. In calorimeters of this general design that I know > of, such the ones Mel Miles made where he measured the temperature at the > cell wall, temperatures everywhere rise when heat increases. They may not > all rise the same degree, but they rise proportionally. You do not see one > sensor showing the same temperature as before. > > I have no idea why it might be doing this, but it does seem like an > artifact. As I said before, the highly stable output that turns on right > away also makes me think it is an artifact. > > - Jed > >
