Good point Jack. One item of interest is that my simulation shows that one can refer to two different COPs when the core generates heating power that are not so evident with an inactive core. The first is an incremental COP that is calculated by taking the derivative of the output power at a particular input power level. This is the what had the scientists concerned when they calculated the relatively large output power delta of 700 watts with an input delta of 100 watts. The large slope is caused by the non linear nature of both the power generation mechanism as well as the forth order non linear relationship between output radiated power and surface temperature. I consider this effect as demonstrating how the effective thermal resistance of the device is multiplied by the positive feedback that is associated with its operation. The temperature rises or falls much faster than expected by an inactive device when subjected to an incremental input power adjustment.
The simulation shows that the maximum slope occurs at the temperature where the internally generated power comes closest to being equal to the power escaping. The device must be designed so that the generated power (as indicated by temperature being a time dependent parameter) never quite reaches the level of the power that is radiated, convected, and conducted away from the core at any time. This should be viewed as a requirement for stable operation under steady input power conditions. Operation outside of this region will result in a latching of output power even when input is removed. Special requirements and restriction to the input waveform can enable one to operate a stable system under careful constraints such as in SSM mode with PWM drive. The second type of COP measurement is our more common way of expressing device performance. This is calculated by taking the total power output and dividing by the total power input. I am assuming steady state conditions with constant input drive power. The number determined by this operation will always be smaller than that of the incremental form of COP mentioned earlier. This is due to the very non linear nature of the relationship between output power and input power when the core power generation is of a significant quantity. This demonstrated behavior solidifies in my opinion the proof that the core is generating a major amount of power during the test. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 3:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible I agree David. You can verify this by looking at the data for both the caps and the E-Cat body. The caps are not incandescent, so there does not appear to be any transparency issue there. The Delta T/Watt is nearly the same despite an increase in input power of ~100W. You would expect it to be significantly lower. On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> To: Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible "A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up." this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP>1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
