Andrew wrote:
Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity.
This assertion is nonsensical. You have forgotten the purpose of the IR camera. The camera measures surface temperature. We know that it is doing this correctly in the second test because it was confirmed with a thermocouple. It is not possible for these two devices to both be wrong and yet within a few degrees of one-another.
Measuring temperature is the only purpose of the IR camera, and the only thing it has to do correctly. We know that it is correct, so the discussion is at an end. The COP does not depend on the IR camera in any other way. The rest is basic physics.
- Jed
