McKubre’s point about the value of the implications of the input power step response is very important, and I entirely agree. In terms of systems analysis, when you have an input step function, the derivative of that input then becomes an approximation of the Dirac delta function, otherwise known as an impulse function. Sending an impulse through a system transfer function yields the transfer function itself, which is pretty handy to have. I’m glad that the testers included this step, and I think we all need to pay close attention to it.
-Bob From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com <mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com> > wrote: * is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP>1 Look at the color. If it is dull red, it may be around 750°C which is where you would expect it to be in a straight line extrapolation calibration up to 800 W. If it is white it has to be around 1300°C, which is far higher than the calibration indicates it should be. A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up. McKubre pointed this out: On page 7 of the report the authors state: “Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.” This is interesting. The shape of the output vs. input power curve is observed (or implied) to strongly curve upwards in a manner completely inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiative heat loss. It is also inconsistent with simple convective heat transfer but several issues need to be addressed before we can claim this as a qualitative or even “semi-quantitative” measure of excess heat production . . . Note that incandescent colors are similar for all materials. - Jed
