From: Jed Rothwell * A chemical effect can produce any COP you like, including infinity. A burning match has an infinite COP; i.e. no input. That’s absurd. …The match in you example has “input” in the mass of its redox potentials which can take it to 100% chemical efficiency and no higher. * You have confused the issue here. You are using the term "COP" to mean the total output energy divided by the potential chemical energy of the system.
No, you are not paying attention and once again, you are confusing power and energy. I used the term correctly to mean the total energy output divided by the total energy input – including chemical input. * JR: In cold fusion jargon, it is often used to mean output power divided by input power. I have never seen anyone use it to refer to energy, or potential energy. No. If COP referred to power, then it would change radically over the run and be essentially useless, since by your definition, it could be high at the start, lower in the middle and lower yet at the end. The only way that COP makes any sense for use in LENR is to have one term which divides total net output ENERGY by total net input ENERGY (including chemical input) * When you use a word in a new and unexpected way, I suggest you warn the reader you have redefined it. I suggest you refrain from this kind of inane and patronizing suggestion when you have no basic grasp of the fundamental difference between power and energy. Jones
