Your conclusion that there is no gain is incorrect. If that were the situation, the behavior that the testers witnessed with increasing temperature could not have happened. I do not know how much gain was actually present due to some of the questions that remain about the true temperature, but I do not doubt that a significant amount is shown.
If you question the fact that the COP is greater than 1, then you should make an attempt to explain what the experimenters witnessed as the input power was increased by 100 watts. Gain is the only sensible explanation as far as I can imagine. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 10:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. But the wire cannot be tungsten outside of the reactor where it is exposed to air! Only inconel will survive air exposure at such temperatures for a month, and it maxes out at about 1300-1350°C (even that is pushing it). And that wire (Fig 12b) is visibly brighter than the wire lines in the reactor (or brightest surface areas of reactor), hence hotter. So QED the reactor surface is <<1400°C. The thermography is flat out wrong for reasons unknown, and knowing that it is wrong you have to set aside all the conclusions that are based on it! The wire in the reactor in an insulated environment is necessarily hotter than the wire outside the reactor, and while everyone might want to believe that they must therefore be using exotic refractory wires that cannot be the case: There is no way to joining the inconel wire to a refractory metal at a temperature above the melting point of inconel within the insulated and even higher temperature of an oxygen-free sealed environment within the reactor. The only conclusion that makes sense is that the wires in the reactor are at or below the melting temperature of inconel, and in such circumstances the only way that they do not melt and fail is if the reactor surface temperature is at least 2-300°C lower as I have previously shown. As to growing belief in gain, I started out that way, but more I have looked at the thermal physics in play and the inconsistencies it creates the less believable it has become, the pictures and heat transfer physics at play make it a strong possibility that there was no gain. On 15 October 2014 21:40, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: From: Robert Lynn How can the Inconelwire in Fig 12b be hotter/brighter in the cooler external environment outsidethe end of the reactor than it is in the hotter internal environment inside thereactor? In FWIWdepartment, here is the grade of Inconel often used for resistor wire Inconel600. As you can see, it is rated to less than 540 C. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nickel-600-Inconel-Wire-041-1-04mm-x-10-3m-/320676194894?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item4aa9ca6a4e As Ericsuggests, given the impossibility of Inconel - they must be using something elsebesides Inconel. I agree. Tungsten comes to mind. Thisgoes along with a growing belief that there is gain here and it could be morethan they claim or less … since they did not calibrate - but there is alsointentional deception, meaning that this is not a scientific report, but one designedto look that way using cast of PhDs who were essentially asleep at the wheel.
