Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good paper. In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
"This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are unknown." I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the experiment was not reported. BUT, I will say that the unknown transmitted radiant heat will be an unknown positive value - above what is accounted for via emissivity. At the higher temperatures, particularly at the core and the heater, the blackbody radiation peaks at a much shorter wavelength, delivering much radiation in the transmission band of alumina - and - the radiated power rises rapidly at the higher temperature of the coil and the core. All of the transmitted heat is unaccounted, and it all contributes to the COP being greater than 1.0. The argument based on high differential COP being used by the Lugano researchers to argue gain probably does not hold much water, as Clarke says. However, this also does not disprove COP>1.0. The fact that you add additional heat and don't get a greater COP is not at all indicative that the COP is only 1. There is no reason to believe that the COP was improving as the temperature went up. Those two data points simply provide no information that the COP was only 1.0. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, > > > > Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final > quoted observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be > greater with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can > judge its relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential > COP does not change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be > relevant. Quote: > > > > “Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP, > and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as > alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the > Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP > are as expected for a system with no excess heat. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of > COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers. > Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the > outer envelope is a BIG error. Insufficient data was taken and/or reported > that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is > the biggest part of the output. This transmitted radiation is an > independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized > envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model). We will > probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger > than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0. > > We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's > work. However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a > COP>2. Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP. > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid > thermal > gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of > Thomas Clarke. > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli > =1 > > The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in > the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina > is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a > non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with > Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The > infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant > band > emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity. > > We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is > 779C, > not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows > a > COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error. > Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP, > and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as > alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the > Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP > are as expected for a system with no excess heat. > > > From: Robert Dorr > > > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for > the Lugano test and that they even signed it. > > But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the > measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the > stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test > of > a Rossi reactor. > > > > >
