Just one question to all the experts around. can you correct my reasoning. I'm not experienced in that domain.
The report claim a COP above 5 in one experiments. My goal is to rule-out COP<=1 since the measure is done by thermography I think naively that to explain such an error : - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. - Error on convection alone should be even greater because it grow less than T^4. - Error on emissivity alone should be of 5:1 change between the blank and the loaded run. thus you should have an optimal accumulation of huge temperature error (few ten percent of temp, thus hundreds of degrees), and few units of emissivity change between, and some convection to help the total... moreover the problem have been addressed with some measures (like the black dots) Am I reasoning well ? is COP<=1 ruled out ? and from the measures of energy density it seems that even COP=1.1 cannot be chemical. it is the tea kettle the skeptics were asking? of course they are no more satisfied... 2013/5/21 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> > Mary Yugo is indeed the bravest skeptic- she commented > a lot on my blog. Very inspiring mode of thinking. Others (Cude?) > have much slower reactions. > Peter > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> it is done. >> >> good prediction. >> >> >> >> 2013/5/21 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> Mary Yugo will claim that Rossi alone is doing this, and the scientists >>> are being duped. That can only mean he has a magical ability to change the >>> reading in a clamp-on ammeter, a voltmeter, and an IR camera that is not >>> even touching his cell. >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
