To answer this question first: > Do you > have a problem with it based on the data ?
So far I haven't seen anything that looked bogus in any of the data, and that's strange. I looked through all the messages from late 2005 through the present on aH-gen, and found nothing which pointed up errors in Naudin's work. The closest I saw was a message from Terry Blanton, which said, in part: [Terry:] > JLN *says* he is using RMS values but without seeing his EXACT > schematic and waveforms for current and voltage we cannot confirm his > system is OU. > > But, as others have pointed out, (including Scott Little of EarthTech > in my correspondence with him), JLN's OU measurements increase > proportionally with the inverse of his duty cycle. This is extremely > suspicious. That's certainly true -- it looks suspicious. But again, it's not conclusive, and it doesn't point to any specific error. Other references in that forum made it sound like people suspected the error -- assuming there is an error! -- was in the calorimetry. If the calorimetry was NG, then the exact value of the COP of 20 was irrelevant (could have been anything OU with bad calorimetry) and the apparent relationship with the duty cycle of 1/20 was a red herring. I saw no claim that JLN was using a simple ammeter and dividing the reading by 20. It's strange, and at this point I'd have to say it's completely unclear WHAT the cause of JLN's OU was. On 03/30/2010 04:03 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > >> If JLN was reading peak amps and dividing by 20 to get RMS amps, then he > was off by a factor of about 4.5. Square output with a 5% duty cycle > has an RMS value of 1/sqrt(20) times the peak value. [snip] But neither of > these scenarios produces a result which is off by a factor of 20. > > > Twenty is probably not realistic to even Naudin, given the Gifnet page and > the more modest claim. The reason that it was so exciting, back then in 2005 > was that this would offer a way towards self-power. No skeptic of > Casimir/ZPE can deny self power, but thermoelectrics are only about 5% > efficient - so a high COP is needed. > > I think the most defensible claim for 2010 is going to be COP> 2-2.5 as is > seen in the table on the Gifnet site. Naudin may not have upgraded his page > in years. This current page looks like what they are now promoting as > realistic. I am assuming Naudin still works for Moller (at least partly as a > consultant) but that may not be true. > > They (Gifnet) have the most to lose if this is grossly in error. It looks > like they are well funded. There is nothing obviously wrong with this claim, > as it now stands, that I can see (other than it is non-conservative). Do you > have a problem with it based on the data ? > > However, I do NOT find the "atomic hydrogen" hypothesis for the gain very > convincing, and given the low Delta-T, the "O-P Pump" which was the > explanation given in the previous posting - has not been ruled out as the > best available hypothesis. > > Don't forget that lots of tungsten is *sputtered* inside that big tube. That > does not necessarily guarantee the availability of Casimir cavities, but it > strongly indicates that they would be there. The cavities could produce the > low temperature equivalent of "space", which would tilt the O-P ratio > towards spin degeneracy, giving up energy. The excess energy would then be > recouped in the cavity by the zero point field. > > Jones > > > >
