From: David Roberson
It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 to convert the
square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder
why he does not include the area of the end caps in his calculation? Do you
suppose he wants to be conservative on this one? ;-)
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/resources/core/images/wink.png>
The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look
pretty good as a start.
Dave
What about the "COP of 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)"
That is "according to Rossi". or is this too a translation error, or in need
of a conversion factor ?
Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ?
Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that corrects all of this
silliness?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene
Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first
retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data -
did Rossi also make a devastating math error?
Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own
calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann
calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It
should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made
the correction, but he seems to make a similar error.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por
denone-hot-cat-report/
I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is
far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend
Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the "Energy Produced"
calculation ?
After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should
only take a few weeks to "close the loop" by converting that heat to
electricity.
