This is symptomatic of what I mean when I say this is entirely outside the realm of academic discourse.
The psychology of the academic is that the engineering of the experimental apparatus is entirely under his control -- hence one would, of course, design the heat source to be compatible with the most widely-accepted standards of calorimetry. It is not within the psychological set of the academic that the key aspect of the experimental apparatus is not only not under his control but it so far from what he would consider a reasonable design, given the constraints normally imposed by funding, that his prior experimental techniques would be rendered impractical. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > David L Babcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the >> big thing here is, why bother? >> > > I can think of some very good reasons not to do water flow calorimetry. At > these temperatures and power levels, it would be dangerous. Also difficult. > It would probably cool the reactor too fast and quench the reaction. The > only way I can think to avoid that would be to envelop the reactor under > insulating material with the cooling water flowing over the outside of the > envelope. This might well cause the reactor to overheat and melt, again. > > If I had one reactor melt, I would definitely not go with a method that > hides the reactor or insulates it. > > If they let the water vaporize it would remove a lot of heat but the > skeptics would go ape shit because they do not believe the textbook heat of > vaporization for water is correct (2260 J/g). > > All in all, I would steer clear of this method. > > I wonder if it is incandescent in the control runs during the step with > 283 W of input power. I doubt it. One thing for sure: You cannot melt a > device of this nature with 283 W! > > - Jed > >
