Dear ECW,
From:
http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
QuoteDisplay More10. The Lugano E-Cat Report The
same team of testers who published the 2013 report (see point 8 above)
carried out new testing in Lugano, Switzerland, of an E-Cat device
supplied by Andrea Rossi and [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon]. They ran the E-Cat for 32
days, nonstop, and measured an energy balance between input and output
heat which yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 (when the reactor was
heated to 1260ºC), and COP of 3.6 (1400ºC). The total net energy
obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5MWh.
I note that you have not yet corrected this section of your site, which
now from material published at LENR-CANR or discussion on LENR Forum,
where several initially doubtful and expert reviewers have agreed - you
surely know to be inaccurate?
I know of no serious reviewer - and
several have gone through the argument - who disputes the downwards
temperature correction - or the fact that the "acceleration" in COP is
an artifact - or the fact that the dummy calculations are correct
because as stated the incorrect "book" emissivity used was changed by
the authors to match the temperatures independently measured.
Unfortunately this was not done for the higher "active test"
temperatures.
Details sumarised below:
(1) The Lugano test figures came from inaccurate temperature calculation
(calculated figures were nearly 2X what actually was measured).
This is not a matter of opinion, but of thermographic fact. Although
there are many uncertainties about the calorimetry the Al2O3 (at the
band measured by the IR cameras) shows an emissivity of 0.95 - with very
little variability - not as supposed by the testers 0.4.
(2) The testers used total emissivity figures, contrary to normal
thermographic practice, when they should have used band emissivity figures. For high
temperature Al2O3 the difference is very large - 0.95 vs 0.4.
(3) Following through the consequences of this one error explains everything
unusual about the report findings, including the "acceleration", under
simplest assumption that Rossi's device is no more than an electric
heater.
(4)You can find the detailed calculations - replicable by anyone
with a PC who can download (free) python 2.7 - published on LENR-CANR.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
I'm sure you would not wish to mislead your readers on this one matter.
Best wishes for the new year,
Tom Clarke