My favorite approach is simply using a pre-filled closed flow system and melting a large pre-specified weight of ice into water. It wouldn't require much expertise from your 3rd party witnesses (just have to weigh the ice, make sure it's actually h20, etc) and you could select people more for their credibility than their technical know-how.
Flow rate, water pressure, water sources, all of that nonsense goes away. That just leaves the problem of observing the inputs, which I still think could be best done by a big diesel generator assuming the experiment goes on long enough. COP = energy required to melt ice / diesel energy. A bit of fiddling needs to be done to calculate ice melting due to poor insulation of the experiment and the water already present, but that seems like math that'd be tricky to fake. Minor risk of explosions due to steam build up, but with all that ice it shouldn't be that high and I'm sure you could have some pressure release valves that are easily triggered. Of course, there is also the problem if the fluid flow is actually also involved in controlling the reactions, which might be why Rossi required infra red cameras. I read about how the fluid kept the nano powder from clumping due to heat in the finnish patent, so it does add up.. On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > See comments by Alain and others: > > > http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2267-Luca-Gamberale-on-radio-24-Freeze-relation-with-CLIENTS-after-some-test-questions > > The date on these comments is 04-08-2013. I am pretty sure that is August. > In the U.S. this would indicate April but I think the discussion is about > events at ICC18. Alain: Please clarify. > > See also: > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/08/dennis-craven-demo-for-niweek/comment-page-1/#comment-157191 > > Questions have been raised about the flow rate. In my experience, the flow > rate is the most problematic parameter. Flow meters often get clogged. You > must repeatedly confirm they are working by measuring the flow directly, > with a bucket and stopwatch. > > McKubre and Storms both set up a siphon on a weight scale to measure the > flow by weight. I think they used flow meters as well. Rossi used a > conventional analog billing flow meter; a type that is used for individual > apartments (low flow rate sub-billing). His flow was about as much as > people in an ordinary apartment might use washing the dishes or taking a > shower, so I am confident the instrument is reasonably accurate. > > It is important to use an instrument within the range of applicability the > manufacturer intended. Okay, that sounds obvious but people often fail to > do it. > > > > The e-catworld article is about Dennis's NI Week demo. It is pretty > interesting. It has nothing to do with flow calorimetry or Defkalion. The > discussion of Defkalion is in the comments section. > > - Jed > >
