Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: ** > *The cable* is what connects the control box to the device. It > appears from the report that they did not examine it for anomalies. >
They did not examine it. That would reveal trade secrets, as noted in the report. > So, are the researchers free to replace it with one of their own, or not? > Of course not. They do not even have the specs for it. What happens in the cable and controller is irrelevant to the energy balance. Despite the discussions here, there is no way what occurs in the controller box or the cable can "steal" electricity without the meters detecting it. That would violate the conservation of energy. When electric power is consumed, either the amperage or the voltage must rise. You might hide input power from some types of meter by changing the output from the electric plug. However, there has been a great of nonsense about that here, as well. You can't do that merely by raising voltage. When voltage exceeds the meter's limits, the meter does not ignore that. It displays a message such as "EEEE" or "OUT OF RANGE." > *The March dummy calibration run*, according to the report, involved > placing voltage probes across the device while the control box was switched > on in non-pulsed mode. > You are right. It says: "Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W." In this case they were using the coils as joule heaters in a conventional step-by-step calibration. > So your statement that "*At no point did they measure output from the > controller*" contradicts that. Please clarify. > I got that wrong. - Jed
