DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote:
> yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the > effect. As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general. > However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid > systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, > material emissivity's,..... > You do not need to know the exact waveforms. I can tell by looking that the power is off most of the time. Whether it is off 50% or 70% of the time makes no difference. You do not need to know the exact emissivity. You can assume the reactor is a black box, with the IR camera parameter set to 1, while you can ignore the thermocouple reading. You still get overwhelming excess power. The whole point of this method is that it requires no exact measurements although they did in fact make exact measurements. If this does not convince a nonbeliever that person does not understand elementary 19th century physics. Flow calorimetry has much to be said for it but it is more complicated and less believable than this. A lot more can go wrong with it, and usually does go wrong with it for the first several weeks. > you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, perhaps not. > Since the cell melted the reaction is obviously not well controlled. > Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that > does not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific > instrument work or was used. That should become possible somewhere around > a COP of 5 to 10. Until then there will be doubts. > But these doubts are not rational. People who continue to have doubts with this test will have doubts with any other test including a standalone self-sustaining demonstration. - Jed
