No, this is wrong. It's not so simple.
The imager measures power and converts to temperature using the emissivity. Then to convert to power, you use the emissivity again, so in a first approximation, it's a wash. The reason it's not a wash in the 2 examples in the paper (e = .8 and e = .95) is because the imager measures power over a restricted range of wavelength, and according to the company literature, this is accounted for with an effective power in the S-B equation which is not equal to 4. However, depending on the particular temperature (wavelength), the effective power can be greater or less than 4. It's not clear what happens in their software if the emissivity is as low as .2 at that temperature, and they didn't seem to try that. More importantly, emissivity can itself depend on wavelength, and then all bets are off, since the software makes a grey body assumption (lambda independent emissivity). It's possible Rossi found a paint that erred in his favor for the December run. In the March run though, they measured the emissivity, and used a different paint, so it's less likely to be an emissivity issue there. But there the power input is trickier with their poorly documented on/off cycling. And I agree that it's a suspicious coincidence that the COP is the reciprocal of the duty cycle. It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know how it works, but I'm pretty sure the power doesn't come from the cheese. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovGXDDvc3ck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: > ** > 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 <andrew...@att.net> > *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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > *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 > >
