I think you exagerrate to the point of non sense. even if goatguy make a real point it is just changing the values of the temperature and the power.
not the fact that COP>1, and even >>1 one reactor with less energy in, get more bright than one with more power getting in. maybe COP is not 3.2 but it is >>1 the rest is details. 2014-10-10 15:49 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene <[email protected]>: > From: Blaze Spinnaker > > Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS > Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, > “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements > claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this > could > not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most > significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and > nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new > era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space > exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting > technology to witness come about.” > > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/new-energy-foundation-issues-press-rele > ase-on-e-cat-endorsement-from-nasas-michael-nelson/ > > > I agree - on the isotopic shifts – very revealing - but were they > endothermic? > > There is no joy in Mudville for this fan. This is because it is now > apparent > that there is no real proof of energy gain in the Levi report. There is > slight evidence, but no proof. Most of that evidence comes from > transmutation, but as we know, transmutation can be endothermic. > > This paper is fatally flawed, and it goes back to the lead author Levi. Why > on earth was he retained? Is he a personal friend of Rossi? > > The Achilles heel of this paper, and the reason Levi should have been > replaced by a more competent researcher is the so-called calorimetry. Not > just stupid but bone-headed, given the translucence of alumina. It’s not as > bad as using a quartz tube, but almost. > > A skeptic named Goat Guy (who is 100% correct on this issue): “there is the > notion of treating alumina as an opaque radiator of known emissivity > (dependent on temperature). I hate to be the guy calling out the Emperor's > lack of clothing, but thin walls of alumina, especially sintered alumina, > are well known optically transmissive (translucent) barriers. This means, > that the actual infrared light output of the Inconel heating wires (which > obviously glow, as in their pictures), will make it through the alumina.” > > In short, the IR being picked up by the camera and then being raised to 4th > power by the calculations was a bogus reading, which was essentially the > glow of the resistance wires. What about the control, you ask? > > … then there is the “control” test – which is the emission of the “dummy > reactor”, which was done at a few hundred input watts, which is nowhere > near > the output level of the purported energy generating regime. Why? Of course > Levi must have realized that the glow of the resistance would have been > seen > through the alumina of the control – just as it was seen later in the 6 > rods > of the insulator. > > DOH! Slaps forehead ! > > > From: Robert Lynn > > … Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some > confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf > all > someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be > happy > to provide them in the interests of clarity. > > Eric Walker > > To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. > • The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than > the live run. > • The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I > don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind > of > additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the > calibration > run). > Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at > the > same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, > calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control > and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. > The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. > > That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not > a > physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, > and > it probably a much better number than that. > >
