Display MoreThanks for returning this thread to nearer its original purpose.
First, the link above is not from MFMP - it is from someone called Slad and linked by MFMP. That in no way makes it less interesting, since work is judged on merit not author, but I like to be accurate in attribution.
I've already commented on this link elsewhere on this Forum. But not fully, so I will do so here.
The content of this link is:
(1) A claim that GSVIT/MFMP have experimentally determined that the Lugano reactor temperature was 1000C, thus contradicting both my analysis and the Profs, and showing a COP of 2. Such a COP would probably be above inherent errors, and so interesting.
(2) A calculation of the temperature difference through the reactor wall. This does not make explicit its assumptions, e.g. what is Ka for the alumina, but since I did an identical calculation a while ago and the results look broadly comparable I'll accept it unchecked.
(3) Some details about the phase of the inner contents of the reactor. I have no comment about this, except that it depends on the outer surface temperature and therefore point (1).
I disagree with (1). Specifically, nether GSVIT not MFMP have determined what is the temperature of the reactor in the Lugano test. MFMP have done some experimental work with alumina reactors, but never clearly calculated the Lugano temperature from that work. GSVIT have looked at the emissivity of alumina, but also not calculated Lugano temperature. the GSVIT experimental results on emissivity do not contradict my result.
The one person who has determined the Lugano temperature is Bob Higgins (I reference his work although Slad does not, but I think this is what Slad means since Bob suggests that COP value Slad quotes).
You can find his work linked has reference [5] in my paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf
I corresponded with Bob while writing my paper. Initially Bob did not make explicit how he determined the Lugano temperature. After our discussion he added his calculation, which you can now see in his paper. You can also see that it is wrong. He assumes that the incorrect emissivity input to the camera (0.4 instead of 0.95) should have an effect on Kelvin temperature which is as the fourth root of the emissivity ratio. That would be true if the band radiant power (measured by the Optris) changed with temperature as does the total radiant power (T^4). However the band here is much longer in wavelength than the BB radiation peak, and at these longer wavelengths the Planck equation approximates the Rayleigh-Jeans equation, which has spectral radiant power proportional to T.
Of course, that is only an approximation, and I enclose in my paper the (simple) code that solves it exactly.
I sound very definite now but I can assure you it took some time for me to be clear myself, and also empirical investigation using the Planck equation - at the time I was not aware of the Rayleigh-jeans approximation only coming to that afterwards. As with many things when you understand it clarity is much easier than when you don't.
This makes a big difference to the results since the ratio of Kelvin temperatures (claimed and real) is now (approximately) 2.375 instead of 2.375^0.25 = 1.24
You can find this argument in my paper where I discuss the significance of Bob's results.
I cannot be sure whether Bob agrees with me but expect he would. Our correspondence ended because he was no longer interested in this calculation and also very (understandably) absorbed with family matters.
So - to conclude:
The first part of Slad's analysis claims that GSVIT and MFMP have experimental evidence that contradicts my results. Slad does not give explicit references, but since I looked at the other work on the topic before writing up my paper I think I can make sense of Slad's point as above, and it is clearly wrong.
Let me also point out that one of the helpful things to do when trying to make any contribution to a debate is to read, carefully, all of the relevant previous work. Especially that which one is contradicting. Slad contradicts my work (explicitly saying why he thinks it is wrong) but had he actually read it in detail he would have discovered that his reason for thinking this was erroneous, based on Bob's calculation which has an error that I explain in the paper at some length as above.
Also, let me say that I welcome this challenge. Anyone looking seriously at this issue (as andreac here has done) should compare what different people say and come to their own conclusions about what is correct.
Best wishes, Tom
Thank you for sharing so much!
