You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm
willing to buy that, because they do spend some time in the report on its
characterisation. Nevertheless, my point, theoretical though it may be, still
stands.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Wuller
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
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
