There are 3 cases:
1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time
2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the time. COP > 1 during this time
3. Dummy, power ON 100% of the time. COP = 1.
#1 implies that behaviour is per dummy (i.e. just like a resistor), even for an
active device under power.
That's the pecularity. Now, a model can be made which exploits the stored
energy characteristics of the device. But why would it do worse than COP > 1
when under active power input? The magic occurs when the input power is claimed
to be OFF.
The magic is either due to a mischaracterisation of the true input power during
the pulse OFF state, or it's due to genuine power generation of a non-chemical
nature by the device, which only arises when power is removed.
This is surely worthy of comment, I would have thought.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes. I assume that you refer to drive for an operating ECAT compared to a
dummy model. Is this what you are pointing out? The numbers speak for
themselves. An inactive ECAT dummy will have a COP of 1 and this has no
bearing upon what happens to an active one driven high enough to generate
internal heat.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon
which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is
Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but
constant feeding would yield COP=1?
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
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
