Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is little valid rationale for avoiding flow calorimetry – other than > that the results would be embarrassing. > I disagree. I think that flow calorimetry would be difficult at these temperatures for a device of this size. It would also make it impossible to watch the device, and I would prefer to keep an eye on the thing. It might be dangerous to seal it in a flow calorimeter. Flow calorimetry for a gadget of this apparent power level and size is not inherently difficult. Once the gadget is made fully reliable and controllable, I am sure a commercial water heater could be designed for it. (A water heater is a flow calorimeter.) However, in the laboratory test phase I prefer the present method. I think the present method should be used with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera. When this report was first published, I assumed a thermocouple was used, because one is shown in the schematic. It is not clear to me now whether it was or was not used. That is one of the questions I asked the authors. They have not responded. - Jed
