The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity. You can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did. That is nonsense. It was also tested (emissivity that is) and it wasn't similar to a metal. You were right to ignore the output side. By even suggesting it Motil and Ekstrom were as disingenous (deceitful) as Rossi is suspected to be on the input side.
Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2013, at 2:10 PM, "Andrew" <andrew...@att.net> wrote: > Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making > a mistake about emissivity. > P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). > At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value > used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be > less than the calculated value. > > Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, > then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. > > It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got > deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I > remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. > > Andrew > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jed Rothwell > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM > Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. > > "Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a > reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et > al." > > Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University > > http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf > > > This document stands as its own rebuttal. > > - ed >
