The fact that the 100 watt input power increase yielded a calculated(and assumed) output power increase of 700 watts does indeed prove that the COP is greater than unity. My model shows that this is the general behavior that is expected from any device that has internally generated power. I have a great deal of information concerning this aspect of the CAT operation as modeled. The additional power contributed by the core is in the form of positive feedback. That is true since the core temperature increases beyond what would be expected from the addition of input power alone. My simulation reveals that you can treat this positive feedback behavior as though the thermal impedance of the ECAT is increasing with ever increasing amounts of core generated power. With that concept in mind you will realize that feeding a delta of input power into the device will result in a larger delta temperature change than expected in the absence of this feedback.
The experimenters were worried by the large delta seen which they apparently thought was a tendency to head into device meltdown. That could indeed happen if the design was not protected by the rapidly increasing thermal radiation output path available to prevent just that occurrence. This design trick most likely is one of Rossi's trade secrets. I suspect that some of his earlier designs did not have sufficient heat sinking by radiation to offer the optimum protection. In those cases the positive feedback due to core heat generation could increase beyond a safe level until thermal runaway lead to device destruction. To reinforce my discussion you should refer to the previous test and the charts supplied within that report. The scientists pointed out the unusual shape of the temperature versus time plot and compared it to what they expected from a resistor load. What they plotted is entirely consistent with what is seen with my latest stable model. At the time I was convinced that Rossi actually was driving the device into an unstable region in order to get good COP. That was possible, but this latest data leads me to believe that he has designed his current device to avoid that dangerous unstable operation region. By careful geometry he must be balancing the radiation, convection, and conduction sinks with the internal power generation process. When such a design is optimized, the effective thermal impedance becomes very large and results in the observed much greater calculated delta in output power than that expected from the input drive delta. A device that did not have extra core generation of power would not behave in this manner. In my opinion this absolutely proves that the COP is greater than unity. My model suggests that the maximum COP actually occurs at an input power that is slightly above the region of maximum slope (delta output power)/(delta input power). The COP tends to fall off at a moderate rate once that maximum operating point is exceeded. The latest report clearly demonstrated that the scientists chose an operation point below the maximum. I can explain this further if anyone is interested. Every time I carefully examine the simulation runs and associated data I learn something new about the device behavior. I have to keep reminding myself that I have only a computer simulation and many important parameters must be hidden from my view. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> To: Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 3:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible Hi Following Mickael McKubre critics, I posted a question for the testers but some here may answer with the public data assuming the convection factor is maybe badly represented (underestimated for the dummy, over represented for the active) because the dummy was tested at lower temperature than the active, what is the minimum possible COP than one can absolutely judge from simply thermal radiation ? can the moment when you increased the power by 100W and the apparent heat increased by 700W be enough to support a COP above 1 ? is there a simple way , with minimal assumption, to be sure that the COP>1 it seems that the dummy was less hot with more power in, and the active version hotter with less power, do you confirm ? was simply the active version wil less power visibly more brightly than the dummy when powered more without the load? (this one only for the testers) is it thus impossible that COP is not above 1, even if many errors have been done, like on emissivity, transmissivity, calibration, convection ? can you provide computation of different possible COP assuming huge errors in those parameters ? if the "extraordinary claim" of COP>1 is confirmed, maybe the normal claim of calorimetry can be more easily accepted (even if McKubre remind us to be cautious on the exact number).
