On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:
1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but > how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the > results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very > improbable > they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this. > Emissivity was overestimated (ε=1) for the December 2012 run, where the COP was estimated at ~6. So that does not seem like something to worry about, at least for that run. In the March 2013 run they used special thermal dots that were applied to the exterior of the E-Cat to calibrate and recalibrate the emissivity as time progressed. I wonder what the second set of calculations would look like with an assumption of ε=1 -- since the COP was only ~2, perhaps it would get uncomfortably close to 1 with full emissivity? One thing I didn't feel too sure about was the contribution from convection. It looked like a fairly complex calculation that depended upon a number of factors, that needed to be looked up in a table in some textbook and that would be easy to get wrong. When I re-did some of the calculations for the December 2012 run without the contribution from convection, the numbers were still impressive (I think the COP was ~4). It might be interesting to obtain lower bound calculations for both December 2012 and March 2013 with ε=1 and ignoring all convection. Eric
