On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, so the take-away messages is: > > "No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing > their form of calorimetry -- not even informally. > I do not see why they need to provide a rationale. The choice is manifestly a good one. It is simple, direct and foolproof. My first reaction to this a few weeks ago was "this is exactly how I would do it." I have not heard from any experts who disagree. You have to find a method that works with a cell of these dimensions running at these temperatures, with control problems such that the cell sometimes melts. That is not an easy set of specifications to meet. > Moreover, the claim that adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT > would cost 'a couple hundred bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism." > It certainly indicates someone who has never tried to construct a large flow calorimeter. The major problem with this idea is that a large flow calorimeter would be a custom-built instrument. As I said, it would take weeks to plug the leaks and find a flowmeter that does not clog up and stop working every few days. I would imagine they would spend a thousand dollars on that alone. What you end up with is a large custom-built gadget that no one understands or trusts, other than the people who made it. It would be like Scott Little's MOAC. In contrast, the present tests rely on industry-standard techniques and off-the-shelf instruments. Only three instruments: the watt meter, the IR camera, and the thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. Nothing could be simpler. I mean that: no method of calorimetry could be conceptually simpler than this. It is not precise, but it is reliable, and accurate enough to prove the point. It reduces the skeptics to arguing that a top-quality IR camera does not work according to the manufacturer's specifications. If I tell you that a flow calorimeter constructed by people who have never made one before does not work as well as they think it does, you would be well advised to believe me. If I tell you that an off-the-shelf IR camera used with standard emissivity surface samples supplied by the manufacturer is off by a factor of three, despite the fact that it agrees to within a few degrees with a thermocouple, you would think I'm crazy. You would be right. - Jed
