Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>- is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the
>COP>1
>
> Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is
where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation
calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to
[mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Alain Sepeda mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com> > wrote:
* is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that th
The fact that the 100 watt input power increase yielded a calculated(and
assumed) output power increase of 700 watts does indeed prove that the COP is
greater than unity. My model shows that this is the general behavior that is
expected from any device that has internally generated power. I h
"A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up."
this mean that temperature grow less than the power ?
this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much
more that before, something anomalous is happening ?
Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (incre
You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is
being generated within the core.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda
To: Vortex List
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
Vortex List
> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
>
> "A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up."
>
> this mean that temperature grow less than the power ?
>
> this mean that w
Alain Sepeda wrote:
"A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up."
>
> this mean that temperature grow less than the power ?
>
Right.
> this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much
> more that before, something anomalous is happening ?
>
Exactly. Howeve
is
generating a major amount of power during the test.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
I agree David. You can verify this by looking at the data for both the
;
> -Original Message-
> From: Alain Sepeda
> To: Vortex List
> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
>
> "A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up."
>
> this mean that temp
for what they
actually were able to accomplish.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 12:18 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
You might say I am splitting hairs but what Mckubre has written here is
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is
> expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation.
>
I get that the preconditions for the Stephan-Boltzman equation were not
met, technically, since the device is
the emissivity was used, it was not the blackbody equation but is not that
the greybody equation (correct term?) ?
anyway what have to be the sensitivity error to explain the apparent COP ?
naively I assume that the emissivity during the calibration have to be much
much higher than assumed and t
12 matches
Mail list logo
