I think it is, but irregardless a wire alone cannot create COP>1 On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does this not indicate that the wire must be producing inductive heating > in the powder? > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Robert Lynn < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> the resistor wire expands with respect to the alumina as it heats up, >> breaking any bonding contact, or lifting the wire of the inner alumina tube >> in more and more places and leading to less and less conductive contact - >> prompting the wire to heat up as more as more of the energy it transmits to >> the reactor must be via radiation and conduction through gas rather than >> contact-conduction. This is the likely what makes it appear that there is >> a gain above 1. >> >> On 16 October 2014 01:13, Alan Fletcher <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> New version with embedded wires. >>> >>> http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014b.php >>> >>> Here I've also assumed that the wires are a simple single strand, rather >>> than the spiral form used in the earlier tests, and are in good thermal >>> contact with the Alumina. >>> >>> >> >
