Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
> . . . So to use such [thermal watt-] meters, you have to presume that you > have no phase shift between the voltage and current (a point of residual > equivocation and error). To insure this is a correct presumption, you need > an oscilloscope to check. You are not getting something for nothing in > this type of sensing. These are not recommended for our line of research > for lack of calibrated dynamic range. > Well, I wasn't suggesting this is a good type for any particular application. I do not know enough about them to make that claim. I was just pointing out to H. Veeder that some watt-meters do work by calorimetry. Calorimeters are good at detecting "all types of endothermic reactions" -- in fact they cannot distinguish between types -- so you can substitute a calorimeter for a watt-meter. I have heard that one advantage of the thermal watt meter is that no matter how short or unusual the wave-form is, it is always captured if the magnitude is high enough. This is true of all calorimetry. No matter how intense and short the burst of energy is, as long as the calorimeter walls prevent it from escaping, and it produces enough joules of heat to be detected, it will be detected. Naturally, if the energy is in the form of a burst of x-rays that go right through the walls, or light in a glass calorimeter, it will not be accounted for. - Jed
