Hi Jed, Side-track question... what constitutes a peer-review? And does this report have one? Regards, Patrick
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > p. 7 of the report: > > "Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 > watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted." > > > It might have worked even better. They did not push it: > > "The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist > from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we > had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of > internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the > reactor at ca. 900 W." > > > I have long said that the COP does not matter at this stage in the > research. It is no indication of what the future COP might be, after > practical devices are engineered. When the input power is stable direct > current, it does not interfere much in the calorimetry. Having said all > that, I will say that a high COP is gratifying. It does make the > calorimetry more believable when the input power waveform is complicated as > in this case. So I'm happy to see a high COP. > > Also it does away with some of the proposed theoretical limits some people > have worried about. > > Finally, it is nice to see the device putting out much more thermal power > than the power supplies could produce, according to the manufacturers. The > significance of that will be lost on the skeptics. It has been lost on Mary > Yugo already, who is blathering about cheese over at Lewan's blog: > > > http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/ > > - Jed > > -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
