Nick Palmer wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote:- > > <<It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs > gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the > gasoline, the COP is still much bigger>> > > No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an > accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. I don't know how long you have been > around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting > and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989. Many people > have brought up your point before. Most people "skilled in the art", and > those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of > preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that "heat > after death" is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further > electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to > be generated for some time ( approaching "infinite" COP), shows the relative > meaninglessness of chasing this form of "COP" - which is exactly what Ed > Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a > change... >
Input power can come from outside the system or from inside the system. I interpret "heat after death" as evidence of a self-powered system, i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system to maintain the production of excess heat. If you think COP is meaningless in this situation, then it is because you have a (theoretical) bias against my interpretation. Harry
