When I requested a COP of 2 or more, I was referring to a long term test which is why the reference to chemical effects is included. The length of time during which the excess generated energy continues is assumed to be long enough to eliminate any possible chemical reactions as being the source. Is it necessary to keep repeating the same group of phrases over and over since most of us understand what is being referred to?
I vote that it should be assumed that when someone discusses the COP as being a certain number that he is referring to a process that is extended in time long enough to eliminate the contributions of any chemical processes as a possible explanation. Any short term COP should be pointed out since that would be the rare exception. So, I believe that a COP of greater than 2 should be the goal if we are to convince most skeptics and the physics community of the reality of LENR. It is difficult to argue against such a strong signal to noise ratio. Until Rossi came along with his relatively large values of COP, many years had passed without us making good headway in proving to the world that LENR is not a measurement error. It is great that that period is now behind us. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 27, 2015 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jack Cole improvement in LiOH design 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
