Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ø A chemical effect can produce any COP you like, including infinity. A > burning match has an infinite COP; i.e. no input. > > > > > > That’s absurd. > > > > The match in you example has “input” in the mass of its redox potentials > which can take it to 100% chemical efficiency and no higher. > You have confused the issue here. You are using the term "COP" to mean the total output energy divided by the potential chemical energy of the system. That is not the engineering definition of "COP." Actually, it refers only heat pumps and the like. See: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Coefficient+of+Performance In cold fusion jargon, it is often used to mean output power divided by input power. I have never seen anyone use it to refer to energy, or potential energy. > If the thermal gain in any system exceeds the value of its redox > potentials plus the input energy from other sources, then the gain is > anomalous. > Yes. Now that you have redefined the term, that is correct. That fits your new definition. However, given the difficulties of measuring energy with precision I think it would be wise to look for a ratio higher than 1.1. When you use a word in a new and unexpected way, I suggest you warn the reader you have redefined it. - Jed
