Larry, Thanks for posting the results here. This is sort of like a peer reviewed but not refereed journal pub, sort of...
What were the disolved gasses (identity and quantity) in the two samples, hot and cold? The hot water most likely had way less disolved gasses. I don't claim we should use "de-aired" tripple distilled water and can see no problem with using tap water but should the hot and cold samples come from the same stock. I don't want to tell you how to run the experiment, just point out some things that could be accounted for.
As the calorimetry is dependent on the mass of the water and its shape (effects surface area - aspect ratios and surface to volume stuff) and since the density is different at different temps, don't we need to make some adjustments? Equal volumes at different temps is not equal quantities of water.
None of my comments are negative criticism just some observations. Hot water typically has way less disolved gasses than some cold water, depending on source. It might be interesting to use both hot and cold water with similar levels of disolved gasses.
One way to get similar samples would be to start with hot very hot water, even boiling and pour off two batches into containers that you fill completely or very nearly so and cover the top with a cover that wold permit pressure to escape but not let air in. For example, you could lay a piece of glass over the open top of a container. Then later when reheating the "HOT" sample in a microwave oven the container will not be broken if the heating is a tad too robust. the other "COLD" sample could be chilled in the cooler with its cover in place to avoid excess contact with air since as the sample coolls its abiulity to disolve atmospheric gasses goes up rapidly.
The disolved gas thing may be interesting but the original problem statement (MYTH) seems to assume no special effort to be made beyond using conveniently available hot water and cold water which implies tap water. It just might be interesting to see what the effects were.
Interesting concept. Integrated over time the improvement is ZERO. I have seen this, a lot. Some things get way more complicated, often beyond the understanding of untrained individuals and members of the priesthood are required to use the NEW IMPROVED AND LEMON SCENTED method and machines but at the end of the day they accomplish nothing more than the original method applied by mortals.
So far I have a week of spare time invested (wasted??) in trying to transfer digital video from a new camera to a new computer to be edited in a new editing program. MS has "upgraded" the OS and it will not talk to the camera. They know of the problem that they caused when changing the speed of the IEEE1394 (Firewire) port and issued a fix. After giving up on my own paultry abilities trying to install the fix, I enlisted MS tech support, in both Canada and India. So far I have nearly 4 hrs of phone time with techs and one hour of it they controlled my computer remotely. Got the patch installed but can't comply with the rest of the instructions as files to which they refer do not exist on my installation of their OS. Supposedly this is simple plug and play stuff that just any Dick and or Jane could easily use successfully. Sony is no help even though every one of these cameras that they sell could put the user through the same hassle trying to transfer video out of the camera to a PC running the popular windows XP. Anyone have a good number for Dick or Jane, I'd like to hire them.
Pat
