If epicatalysis systems exist which can produce a higher temperature from just ambient temperature without any additional input power then COP in terms of heat output is infinity which is meaningless.
By analogy applying the COP measure to a naturally occurring waterfall gives infinity...except with epicatalysis the water is falling up instead of down. harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > I do not have a problem with low apparent COP at this early stage. > > > > BTW – we should step back and relook at the Cravens NI-Week demo in the > context of Epicatalysis, and as an example of something similar but more > robust than Sheehan. Cravens was getting much higher COP, at modest temps. > There is no apparent reason to drop all the way back to ambient. > > > > The gain could be due to hydrogen bond asymmetry only – meaning that there > is an asymmetry in hydrogen catalysis using some metal combinations which > is actually gainful. That would be in the sense of allowing the chemical > bond to be split with slightly less energy than it gives up on re-bonding. > This could define Craven’s system as well, no? > > > > > > *From:* H Veeder > > > > The COP measure by itself is inadequate for evaluating the productivity of > such systems. Carnot efficiency (which will exceed 100%) should be included > in the measure somehow. > > > > harry > > > > >
