There can be non-malicious reasons for not reporting that data as Jones notes. I would add self-deception to that list, which I think is likely in this case. Everyone close to the matter believes Godes couldn't have made a mistake on the input power measurement. While understandable, it is likely the Achilles heal of the whole thing.
Ultimately, if you can't get more power out than you put in from the wall, it is useless, and is most probably an error. To prove it isn't, you have to do a lot more convincing experiments than have been presented by Godes et. al. so far. You have to answer every skeptical question that is reasonable with data and/or explanation. They have not even come close to doing this, but instead try to rely on the authority of the inventor / tester. On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other > Dardik spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be > extremely lossy, especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple > signal generators, all of which carry their own losses. > > No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the > discussion about accurate meters could be premature. > > From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if > anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup > - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is > generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE - > as high as 90%. > > Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It > does not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring > the losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did > not want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP > is what funders want to see. > > There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be > constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy > localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently > generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost > no flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven > by a DC source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to > be much less - and that situation would then accurately reflect the true > thermodynamic balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall > power at the start for one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do > this yet (or did he?) since perhaps he is not certain that he knows the > most efficient waveform. He would not want to get locked in and perhaps he > is still searching for more. > > Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in > the report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most > efficient superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be > static as opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning. > > We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the > similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of > Missouri moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with > Dardik long ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more. > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell > checking :-) > > > To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be > accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right? > > You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is > not too high for a $20 meter. > > This one has good reviews: > > > https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T > > >
