David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack needs to find some way to increase the COP if anyone is to have great > confidence in his experiment. As you point out, a real COP of 1.1 above > chemical effects is as valid as one of 2.5 provided it can be easily proven > to exist. The term "COP of 1.1 above chemical effects" is mistaken. A COP is a measure of output divided by input. A chemical effect can produce any COP you like, including infinity. A burning match has an infinite COP; i.e. no input. The reason we know cold fusion is not a chemical process is not because of the output to input ratio, but rather because it produces more heat than any possible chemical reaction. Whether the COP is 1.1 or 100.1 makes no difference. The trouble with a COP of 1.1 is that it might be an error. If the calorimetry is not particularly good, this might actually be 0.9 (no excess heat). If an experiment produced only 1.1 times the chemical energy possible from the species present in the cell, that would not prove anything. Again, that is because 1.1 would probably be within the margin of error. It would have to be considerably more than that to prove the effect is not chemical. I believe Jones Beene made the same error: > 7) In principle, COP of 1.1 is no less AMAZING than COP 2.5, if the > gain is above chemical, since both are arguably outside the laws of normal > thermodynamics. > As I said, a chemical system can have any gain, including infinity. Second, this is not outside the laws of normal thermodynamics. It is squarely within those laws, as are all cold fusion experiments. Otherwise you could not measure the heat. All calorimetry is predicated on thermodynamics. If an effect were outside the laws of normal thermodynamics you would have no way of measuring the output power or determining the COP. You would not know it is 1.1. - Jed
