From: Jed Rothwell
Ø Today, here for the first time that I know of, Beene used "COP" to mean energy out/potential chemical energy. That is not what you meant when you reported a 1.1 COP. That is not correct, yet Rothwell keeps trying unsuccessfully to cover up his incorrect understanding of both this experiment and the meaning for COP. Clark’s experiment is based on calibration. I hope Rothwell will take the time to familiarize himself with what calibration means. In the dummy run, if there is potential chemical energy available to contribute at a given temperature, then that energy will included in the calibration. No one made a detailed inventory of where it came from, as he well knows. We are analyzing net-energy out vs. net energy in, and chemical energy (as potential) is part of the P-in in the calibration. It does no good for Rothwell to repeat his initial error in order to save face. Beene accused me of mixing up power and energy. I did not, Of course you did. It’s there in black and white. You said power instead of energy – and did it at the same time you were trying to accuse me of the wrong understanding. Give it up and move on. We all make mistakes and you goofed – but it is time move on and you are only embarrassing yourself more with this continued reference to your earlier error. Jones
