Jed: More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!
Answer: - he did not read the report, or just skimmed it. - on the emissivity point, he borrowed the basis of the argument from someone else (Motl???) who also uses the emissivity of stainless steel and not ceramic/paint. Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is NOT what is emissiviting (to coin a word)! J Ceramics have a much higher emissivity. I think it was Motl that initiated that erroneous line of reasoning; or was it Gary Wright? -Mark Iverson From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e" (emissivity) ratio. He wrote: "The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1." He has this backwards. The lower value would yield a much higher temperature, meaning higher power. The most conservative setting is 1. Not only did Ekström get this wrong, so did Cude (it goes without saying), some blogger named Motl, and Andrew. Andrew realized his mistake. Ekström, Cude and Motl will never admit they were wrong. - Jed
