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
