To go a bit further, the law applies to black body radiation and not just any emitter. I suspect it is a difficult task to prove that the actual power being radiated is exactly what is expected unless a system is constructed to capture all of the radiation over the entire spectrum. Then that must be reconciled against a known amount of power being supplied to the radiator. It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation.
The best that we can do is to calibrate our test system with a known amount of power being radiated. That is exactly what the testers did in their dummy run. It would have been better had they calibrated their equipment at the same output power as generated by the device, but that could not be done under the conditions they experienced. I give them a great deal of credit for what they actually were able to accomplish. Dave -----Original Message----- From: H Veeder <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 12:18 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible You might say I am splitting hairs but what Mckubre has written here is technically incorrect. The Stephan-Boltzman law is relationship between temperature and output power. It is not a relationship between input power and output power so you can't use the law by itself to infer any relationship between input and output power. Additional assumptions/laws are required. Harry On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is being generated within the core. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> To: Vortex List <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible "A calibration curve will bend down. It never bends up." this mean that temperature grow less than the power ? this mean that when you increase the power, and if temperature grows much more that before, something anomalous is happening ? Either excess heat, or some external blanket effect (increase of thermal resistance)... but convection does not diminish with heat? did I undertand well? 2014-10-14 22:09 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> 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
