However, perhaps kevmol has in mind the Doral test, and by "third party report" he means the Penon report. I and many others concluded that report was invalid. For details, see the report itself and the reviews by Murray and Smith:
I am pretty sure he meant the Penon report, from what he wrote here:
The contract did stipulate this, but the report was invalid, having fake data and physically impossible claims. Such a report cannot fulfil a contract.
Thank you for the "Rick Smith" trip down memory lane.
Of all the players. I rate him as least competent compared to expectations. (And the most irritating).
He's the one who mis-read the pump specification as "Maximum" where it's actually "Minimum'.
"Max Flow 32 l/hr".
Maybe he can be forgiven for not realizing that that specification is significantly exceeded at low head.
In the vast majority of the cases, this cell content was 36000, not 35837, or
36714, but 36000 exactly. 27000 and 29000 were well represented also. This is undoubtedly the
most uniform data collection which this author has seen in his forty plus years of engineering.
There is no reason or need to round data to the nearest 1000 in a report like this. In fact, one
needs to use the “Round” function in a spreadsheet to get numbers to display like this. This
author has more comments on the water meter later in the report.
That's because the main dial only reads out thousands. 36, 27 and 29.
(The other digits were available on hard-to-get-to internal dials)
[ Quote isn't working right ... START ]
On 2. Dec 2015, Mr. Fabiani notes this, “power decrease to 700kw upon client's request”. However, Mr.
Penon’s data indicates a produced energy value of 1,41E+07, which is engineering notation for
14,100,000 watts per day. Dividing this by 24 hours yields 587,500 watts or 587.5KW. There is a
112.5KW discrepancy between Mr. Fabiani’s data and Mr. Penon’s reported output. One could logically
ask who is correct, and why the discrepancy.
On 22. Dec 2015, Mr. Fabiani notes this, “reactor 2 reboot and power generated taken back to 1MWh/h
upon client's request”. Similarly, Mr. Penon reports a produced energy value of 2,03E+07, or 20,300,000
watts per day. Dividing by 24 yields 845,833 watts, or 845.3 KW. There is a 154.2KW discrepancy here.
Because of these incidents, and likely many others, all of the data in the Penon report must be viewed
with extreme skepticism.
[ END ]
The "Penon" readings were taken at a set time of day. If the “power decrease to 700kw upon client's request” took place at EXACTLY the same time as the meter was read, then the two figures might agree.
But they were most likely done at a different time ... lets say 6 hours. (I didn't do the revers-average math)
Penon = 18 hours at 1 MW + 6 hours at 700kw
Of course it will differ.
To use “COP” as a measure of the efficiency of a heat producing device (the E-Cat), as opposed to a work absorbing device (an air conditioner), is a misapplication of the term.
It's a perfectly fine term, is well defined, and is widely used in the LENR community.
On the irritating side ... why introduce a picture of a 1GW high-pressure COAL-fired power plant and compare it with a 1 MW low-pressure plant?
and "The astute reader will notice" .....
"To illustrate, if one boils water (212° F) to make sweet tea and leaves the hot tea sitting
on the counter, what happens to it? Does it naturally get hotter or does it eventually cool down
to room temperature? We all know ...... "
Why Sweet tea? Does it matter if it's not sweet?