Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is
Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1? Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a mistake about emissivity. P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K). At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value used to calculate output power, then the actual output power will indeed be less than the calculated value. Bottom line is that if the emissivity is actually 3 times lower than thought, then what was thought to be a COP=3 changes to a COP=1. It wasn't Motl that had it backwards - it was I. Oh and also the guy who got deleted from Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. "Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al." Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf This document stands as its own rebuttal. - ed
