RE: [Vo]:What was the implicit power meeter in the Lugano report showing
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/
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 all a summation of R I(t)*I(t). I just find it strange that it all was a focus on 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 Beene jone...@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/
[Vo]:What was the implicit power meeter in the Lugano report showing
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. So, people have tried to explain this with some strange temperature behavior of the resistance. But isn't it more natural to explain away this by having power sloshing back and forth over the cable and at each slosh there is an extra heat loss from the cable. What I figure is that the implicit meter refers to the cables which where connected between the power regulator and the control box, I figure that at higher power, there is less interference from the power regulator hence the amount of phase shift between voltage and current over the cable decreases as output power decreases. All this is what is expected in A LC circuit np?. Why is it so certain that the implicit meter should follow the explicit power meter when we have no control of the control box? Cheers Stefan
Re: [Vo]:What was the implicit power meeter in the Lugano report showing
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/
