The energy freed by reaction become heat (enthalpy) or is an unknown lost (entropy) as a function of temperature. For example, one might know from mass balance and stoichiometry what reaction happen and how much. However, the entropy term could be very high, and the heat yield low. In which case the method of heat recovery doesn't help because the entropy isn't recovered as heat. In the case of Santilli's ICFP something around 5/10,000th of the freed energy from the nuclear reaction is enthalpy. I will post the calculation when I get to it on Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions. - Physics - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)
One would be well advised to focus on experiments designed to produce heat rather than being deceived by a false perception of high efficiency heat yield from reaction. It seem to me that it is foolish to scale method that can't power a small space heat and to expect that such method could power a city.
It seems we have a misunderstanding here. I am talking about the act of measuring heat with calorimeter. When I apply 500W of heat via a Kathal wire to the system, I get between 495 and 500W of heat captured in the transpiration air flow as calculated by the Delta-T, Mass flow and specific heat capacity of air.
Now when I add a LENR reactor the system and add the same 500W input, I get 550W out which gives us 50W of XSH, which is about 10x the uncertainty of 5W (oversimplified for discussion purposes).
With a real water flow calorimeter I have used last year, the heat capture was about 85%. Various calibrations gave anywhere from 82-90% depending on temperature. This roughly 5% of uncertainty in the water flow calorimeter represents 25W of a 500W input. This gives much lower statistical significance to the same result. Therefore any calorimeter that have a higher heat recovery efficiency will always yield cleaner data with a higher statistical significance.
I never mentioned anything about heat yield from the LENR itself. I am focusing only upon calorimetry.
