Stefan, you appear to be considering the effects of multiple reflections upon
the input power calculations. This type of issue comes up when the frequency
is within the RF range, generally far above what is used during this test.
Also, with RF engineering you handle the reflections as voltage or current
reflections instead of multiple power reflections since they combine at the
drive source as vectors. Once combined properly the reflections cause a
modified impedance to be presented to the drive source which it works into.
In my opinion it is extremely unlikely for multiple reflections to be important
in this case. And there is ample evidence that no one performed tricks with
the input cable wiring since the testers were sensitive to that type of
activity.
It does appear that the camera measurements were questionable within the
temperature range outside the calibration zone. To counter that to a
significant degree is the nuclear transformations seen when the final ash is
compared to the input fuel. Some among the skeptics believe that Rossi
monkeyed with the samples, but that has never been proven. Besides, any
attempt by Rossi to do that carries a great risk of discovery.
If you have followed the recent work of Dr. Parkhomov and others you will find
plenty of evidence supporting the claim of excess heat generation within the
core material. It appears that the main question remaining is whether that
heat is caused by chemical, hydrino(??), or nuclear reactions. I await
further long term testing results by replicators before accepting the heat as
being nuclear in nature.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, May 2, 2015 10:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What was the implicit power meeter in the Lugano report
showing
Where is this issue being raised?
People skeptical brings this up, of cause as you say it's possible to sill
be fooled, it needs more data to decide. I just wanted to see if there was an
alternate explanation, and if it is sound. P(t) = U(t)I(t) does alternate
sign for suitable phase differences. The measured P is the sum over all
those P(t)., The cable losses is alla summation of R I(t)*I(t) . I
just find it strange that it all was a focuson temperature dependent
resistance that didn't add up as a counter argument. I think that the camera
measurements is more critical when it comes to issues atm.
Regards
Stefan
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe
I looked at the Lugano report, trying to understand the issue with the
implicate power meter
e.g. why the power loss in the cable does not follow the power measured.
Where is this issue being raised?
It will likely be impossible to know the answer in retrospect, but it could be
consistent with altered wiring, such as a version of the circuit of Peter
Thieberger.
Thieberger described (but AFAIK did not test) a circuit that an unscrupulous
person could use to fool common meters. This is somewhat easier to do with
3-phase cable.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-e-cat-cold-fusion-or-scientific-fraud-624f15676f96
Indeed - as this relates to Lugano - it was questioned that the current clamps
used by Levi could be fooled exactly this way – but there is no evidence of
this having happened.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/05/rossi-on-the-clamps-in-the-lugano-e-cat-test/