p. 7 of the report: "Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted."
It might have worked even better. They did not push it: "The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W." I have long said that the COP does not matter at this stage in the research. It is no indication of what the future COP might be, after practical devices are engineered. When the input power is stable direct current, it does not interfere much in the calorimetry. Having said all that, I will say that a high COP is gratifying. It does make the calorimetry more believable when the input power waveform is complicated as in this case. So I'm happy to see a high COP. Also it does away with some of the proposed theoretical limits some people have worried about. Finally, it is nice to see the device putting out much more thermal power than the power supplies could produce, according to the manufacturers. The significance of that will be lost on the skeptics. It has been lost on Mary Yugo already, who is blathering about cheese over at Lewan's blog: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ - Jed
