Thanks Jones. Good to know that I had it right all along. I was the first here
to assert that Motl had it backwards. So, apparently, does Ekstrom.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on converting
radiance into a corresponding temperature - and that camera has a setting for
blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher temperature.
Levi & the Swedes (sounds like the new ABBA) used the most conservative
setting - one.
That device is solving for T not for P.
If you entered .33 for the value of epsilon - instead of one, then the
temperature will appear to be much higher, not lower. That is precisely why
Levi & the Swedes correctly stated that they used the most conservative setting.
It was Motl who got it backwards and that is why the correct answer was
deleted from his blog. Vanity, vanity.
From: Andrew
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
