If anyone cares to read the user manual for the power analyzer, see:
https://www1.elfa.se/data1/wwwroot/assets/datasheets/okCA8335_manual_en.pdf
-Mark Iverson
From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 10:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
The process you have described has the characteristics of
a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where
he characterised the effect
David’s model should be able to make a projection about the reaction time
of the positive feedback loop. Even through there are non-linearities
involved, the model might be detailed enough to get close enough to the
critical point so that a linier approximation could be made. You know, like
in
Quantum mechanics governs both attraction and repulsion between charges. Ax far
as the maths is concerned, it's just a sign change. If you come at this as an
interaction characterised by exchange of quanta, then (via a momentum model)
only repulsion makes intuitive sense. But that's OK - QM is
I suspect David's model to be mainly descriptive at first order, and that the
regulation of it to require nothing more sophisticated than zeroth order.
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant
I experience momentum exchange as a push, but also don't think the cause of
everything must be explained
in terms that are consistent with momentum exchange. However, I am well
aware that this has been a dogma of
physics for hundreds of years.
Harry
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Andrew
This paper verifies that a photon eradiated Bose-Einstein condensate will
cut the frequency of incoming photons by dividing that frequency between N
numbers of atoms.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf
Rydberg excitation of a Bose-Einstein condensate
“The results of theoretical
Getting further down that rabbit hole, Jones!
I'd just like to comment on this part of your posting. Note that I've
capitalized a few words I'd like to emphasize:
---
The simulation showed that all of the springs shared the same amount of
vibrational energy; and thus almost verified one
If you want to sneak DC into a system, you'd never get it passed a clamp meter,
if you just use some diodes. You'll need serious decoupling. I say serious,
because the load is substantial and will quickly drain the reservoir
capacitors. Any ripple on the DC will generate a varying magnetic
or a scope and LOOK at the damn thing : D
Anyway... next piece of equipment on the shopping list (for the next test)
ought to be http://www.tortech.com.au/category/3-phase-isolation/
Plug everything into an isolation transformer. That should do it.
.s
The only doubt that was raised recently was from Levi interview that let me
fear that Rossi did not let much freedom to the team to test DC...
Where the testers allowed to measure DC ?
Where they allowed to change the cable ?
Where they allowed to use a wattmeter that is put as a in-out plug ?
I
Right, that was a know problems with simple rectification and transformers
that get magnetized.
however you can clearly see it on the waveform.
You see the asymetry of shape. impossible to miss.
second point is that mixing two voltage, it will kill or trouble other
instruments plugged (peak
by the way, not a bridge but a single wave (one diode) rectification...
usual bridge does not cause asymetry, neither double wave.
2013/5/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
Assume that you have a bridge rectifier in the blue box. This is followed
by a filtering capacitor. The DC is then
On May 26, 2013, at 8:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 25 May 2013 12:14:15
-0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in
the
equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was
suggested in
I think this book, signaled by the wonderful Cultural Offering
can help in dealing with the most stubborn and vocal enemies
of our field whose imagination has no limits and no constraints
as decency or elementary logic
http://culturaloffering.com/2013/05/27/a-history-of-swearing.aspx
Peter
--
David, I understand the IP problem, but I do not see how a model as
you describe can be patented. The problem of control that the nuclear
process presents is obvious and trivial. It is the same problem of
control present in any positive feed back system. A unique feature
would only be
I suppose that it would be easier in person to discuss this issue, but that is
not available. Yes, we are on the same page regarding the positive feedback
threshold leading to self destruction.
I refer to what you mention as active cooling of the system. We have discussed
this in vortex on
A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being
emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is
3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l
Hi,
On 26-5-2013 5:55, Duncan Cumming wrote:
Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a
type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope.
He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an
oscilloscope because it would reveal a
On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
The process you have described has the characteristics of a
ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet
Do you think that Rossi would be stupid enough to have DC voltage at the power
socket pins which would be so easy to check? The testers could have looked at
this at any time and his gig would have been up. This is not reasonable to
assume as he was not around to prevent this from happening.
Hi,
On 26-5-2013 12:28, Andrew wrote:
A fuse blows when a certain *current* passes through it. P = V I cos
(theta); *power is voltage x current x power factor*. Thus you can
supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how
a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power.
b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat
control box back into the grid,
Exactly my thoughts. The trouble is even with a low-pass filter I think
you might see the waveform of the control on the scope if it is RF. I've
certainly seen this with HFAC without the scope
The concept mentioned below by Duncan is not correct. The DC current that
flows into the resistor from the wall socket finds a short circuit to ground in
the power transformer center tap in most cases.
All of the power being delivered into the resistor from the wall socket can be
determined
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle,
they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't,
because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it
in manual mode.
They were allowed
Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what
purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an
exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express
frustration that the poster does not understand the experiment?
Rossi did
Sounds like an excellent idea Bob. A hitch might develop if the testers bring
the LPF along with them and attempt to power down the ECAT to insert it.
It does seem ludicrous for anyone to suggest that Rossi would not allow the
scientists to view the waveform at the power socket. If this
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period.
Where did you hear this? The people testing the system said that he put no
restrictions on the instruments they used. He only said they had to measure
the power on the outside of the power supply.
-
Ed, do you consider the emission of photons as a result of interaction of the
protons due to the coulomb force between them or the strong force? It seems
that the initial distances are much to far apart to involve interaction by
strong force.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund
I agree with that!
First MIT attempt at Rossi Reactor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBy01pgJrEofeature=youtube_gdata_player
On Monday, May 27, 2013, David Roberson wrote:
A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power
being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the
I have no idea how nano-particles might be associated with the Rossi device. I
do however think that any final product that he produces must have a panic
button of some sort when the process gets out of control. Perhaps your idea
might constitute a safety process.
Dave
-Original
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
By direct admission of the team, posted here, *it did not occur to them
to check* for a DC level change.
Okay, so they will do it next time, or the time after that. If Rossi is
doing anything like this, it is inevitable that he will be caught.
Sooner or
Dave, the interaction is unique and not related to the strong force
as normally defined. Some additional kind of interaction is revealed
by the phenomenon. Or perhaps the strong force is poorly
understood. In any case, the two protons know that they have too
much mass-energy for the
Hi,
On 27-5-2013 17:01, Jones Beene wrote:
Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what
purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an
exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express
frustration that the poster
On 27-5-2013 17:26, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high
voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power.
Jed made the same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current
to get high power . . .
No, I did
Then is that an explanation of why Gamma rays are not observed in LENR? If
2 of the atoms inside a multi-atom BEC fuse together, the incoming
radiation (to the rest of the BEC) gets subdivided based upon how many
atoms have formed the BEC. Right?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Axil Axil
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:
If my assumption is right that:
a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then
the AC from the wall plug,
I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy,
and that it
See:
Manual, PCE-DC 3 Current detector
http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/manual-clamp-meter-pce-cd3.pdf
Current sensor: Hall effect sensor type
You have to select AC or DC. I doubt it does both simultaneously. Although
if someone managed to run both, I do not see why the voltmeter would
I wrote:
I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy,
and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See
Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is
in seconds.)
On second thought, that might just be the duty
Mark,
Yes - the energy localization aspect of Ahern/Dicke/Preparata and the
superradiance modality could apply to any secondary reaction which benefits
from local mechanical pressure at the nm geometry.
However, the NAE implies a nuclear reaction, which may not be necessary.
The absence of
From an interview with Hanno Essen, posted here earlier:
Q. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during the
next test?
Essen: This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.
So, we're all clear that this was an independent test? Right?
Andrew
The duty cycle could be the carrier wave… this explains part of AR’s reluctance
to have this detail broadcast.
The waveform in question may in fact be not so much “proprietary” as it is part
of the claim of another patent application from a potential competitor
(Energetics LLC)
Eric, I suspect that the duty cycle is indeed most of the proprietary
information. That must be adjusted to compensate for a lot of parameters
associated with the ECAT. The model I speak of often suggests that the duty
cycle is what keeps the device under control.
I wonder if anyone in
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic
invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi must be cheating -
but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws.
Perhaps. But it
That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving
just enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy
without it producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally,
many hydrons would fuse leaving too few unreacted hydrons so that the
dissipated
Glad we're back in sync. Although there's definite evidence for thermal runaway
25 years ago with PF, with Rossi's kit I'm not so certain. In fact, I don't
know of a single example. He only got the meltdown when he applied continuous
power at a level far above that which he uses now.
Andrew
Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly
due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If
input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the
device itself.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From:
Having followed the various interesting arguments here relating to the PCE-830,
DC bias (e.g., diode + smoothing capacitor), high frequency AC etc., as
conceivable anomalous input energies, I today revisited the intriguing “Power
Magic” diagram from Peter Thieberger:
The earlier posts by Rossi on his blog mention many cases where thermal run
away happened. Most of these were when he was developing the earlier versions
of his mechanism. The fact that thermal run away can occur has been common
knowledge for a very long time.
Anytime a positive temperature
OK, thanks for the info - I had not seen those reports. Certainly it is in
general expected to happen if it's known that the reaction rate increases with
temperature. So the trick with active negative feedback (cooling) applied at
higher temperature is that this technique holds the promise for
Yes, what you say in bold type is true but not a problem in this case. Why do
you think that energy must be radiated and convected at a level that is greater
than the input throughout the entire cycle? Consider energy storage within the
device as the place where some of the generated energy
How the world becomes lockstep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=W1TMZASCR-I
I am not acknowledging any such thing - yet :). That's because I don't know
what's going on during the pulse OFF time, which is 66% of the total time.
Certainly the temperature drops a little during that time, as the report shows.
The question is whether there truly is no power delivered during
And in more complex systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=JWToUATLGzs
Does this apply to items of current interest?
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
How the world becomes lockstep:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
That is the idea. However, why would only a few hydrons fuse leaving just
enough unreacted hydrons available to carry all the energy without it
producing energetic radiation? I would expect occasionally, many hydrons
Ed has hit upon the secret of LENR in a back handed way. BEC can form at
extreme temperatures; this miracle is the backbone of LENR.
Electrons can be broken apart into thier constituent components: charge,
angular momentum, and spin.
I was saddened by the day that NASA essentially abandoned manned space
flight thinking it was the end of the Space Age. Was I ever wrong!
You probably know about most of these companies; but, here is a
compilation:
http://nymag.com/news/features/space-travel-2013-5/
Rossi keeps this information secret. It is unfortunate that he does this, but
that is his nature. I would love to see a number of measurements associated
with his material, but all questions of that sort are blocked due to IP
concerns.
It is frustrating to be kept at arms length from such
Come on Andrew. Bite the bullet.
Review the pictures in the report regarding the time domain response of the
device in both the on and off state. The writers make a big deal about the
difference between the behavior of the ECAT and a regular resistor. I see the
effects of positive
Let me be clear, Axil. I have not hit on anything. Kim first suggested
a BEC can form at high temperatures in a lattice. I do not believe
this is possible. I DO NOT accept this as an explanation of LENR.
The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute
zero. If a
Actually it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to set up such a
demonstration. What exactly do you have in mind, and who would be
interested in seeing such a demo? Do you have any contacts on the Rossi
team?
I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo.
Electrical
What I am proposing is a lot simpler than that. No bridge rectifier, no
capacitor, just a simple diode. I am saying that given a diode in series
with a resistor, it is not possible to measure the power using a clamp
on ammeter.
I am not suggesting that anybody has performed a scam. I am
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ root
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php frames
Summary :
In May 2013 the results of a Third Party test were presented as an arxiv.org
paper. A summary is at Forbes.
Unlike previous eCat models which heated water, producing steam, the Hot Cat
Duncan,
Read some of my recent posts and you will see why it will not work. Unless
Rossi has hidden a DC source behind the wall plug it does not matter how much
DC flows into the control box due to rectification. The input power is
uniquely defined by the AC voltage and AC current waveforms
http://www.circuitstoday.com/half-wave-rectifiers
*(ii)**Disadvantages:1.* The output current in the load contains,* in
addition to dc component*, *ac components of basic frequency equal to that
of the input voltage frequency*. Ripple factor is high and an elaborate
filtering is, therefore,
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in
a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi
et al.
Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University
http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf
This document stands as
I posted this not long ago as follows:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physicists-revolutionary-low-power-polariton-
laser.html
*Physicists develop revolutionary low-power polariton laser*
LENR is like a polaritor laser turned in onto itself. Dark mode EMF is not
allowed to exit the lattice
Mornin' Jones!
NAE might imply to some 'nuclear', but I qualified it with , ..in or around
the NAE, *whatever they turn out to be*,
I use the term NAE more in a general sense to refer to the localized areas
that are conducive to the reaction/process... it obviously is quite
different than the
My source was Hanno Essen, one of the authors. He answered a question
asked by email by one Sterling D. Allan http://sterlingdallan.com/
/ of Pure Energy Systems News/, reported earlier in this list.
/4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude
that/ /also a DC current
Sure, the reference would be the set point, and that's simply the operating
temperature. Notionally you set this as high as possible, consistent with
materials integrity and the ability to regulate a strongly
intrinsically-positive feedback system (the device itself). The idea is that
you end
nuclear reactor have a power versus temperature curve with multiple
resonance, normally you set the reactor in the negative slope... if you
move it too violently, even to the low, to can get to the positive slope on
the next resonance
that is tchernobyl as someone told me...
reactor was in
Yes, Robin is correct.
Duncan
On 5/26/2013 8:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 26 May 2013 22:35:09 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
This is a little different. A full bridge rectifier will allow for both halves
of the AC current to pass, and so it should be
Word up Duncan - Rossi currently resides in Florida!
You could call it The Power Sneaker.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Duncan Cumming
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:59 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Half wave rectifiers are not the way to go. They have been all but abandoned
in the electronic world because of the issues you have found. Full wave
bridges eliminate the DC component from the mix and should be used.
This does not suggest that accurate power measurements can not be obtained
With chopped DC, a clamp on ammeter will show the AC component. So if
you had 0 to 1 amp chopped, the ammeter would show 0.5 amps peak AC. So
you get a partial reading, substantially less than the true current that
is actually flowing. IMHO, this could have happened at the demo. I am
not
Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off, the
insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer and the
plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's the
possibility of injection of RF also, also capacitatively coupled into the
Terry:
It is the fulfillment of a lot of effort by citizen groups who lobbied
Congress. I led some of them. We asked that they encourage NASA to withdraw
from the transportation industry and stimulate the private sector to take its
place.
Had the economy not crashed in 2008 and had Congress
I would put the Rossi reaction tube in the middle of a lithium heat pipe.
This pipe conducts heat great. Its thermal conductivity is billions of
times as efficient as water. This would equate to a large and highly
reactive thermal mass.
You should try to model this type of design.
On Mon, May
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20:43 AM
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy
production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel
powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al.
Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund
Duncan Cumming wrote:
(Of course, DC rated Hall effect clamps are available but were not used in
the demo, partially because Rossi appears to believe that an AC outlet will
only deliver AC current - this is far from being the case).
1. People have been measuring DC amperage by measuring a
I am not sure if I count as a skeptic, because I am not saying that any
kind of scam was perpetrated. I am certainly not suggesting that there
was a DC power supply hidden in the wall! My doubts are related to the
electrical engineering skills evident in the published paper, attempting
the
I do not follow how the set point can be the operating temperature. How is
this inputting to the comparator? Are you proposing some external heat source
which remains constant at that temperature? For a loop to function it must
have a reference that does not change with the controlled
The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by specifying
3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input would suffice
here, given the power levels.
They redesigned the control box between the December and March tests, changing
the output from 3-phase to
Forget the RF for now. That is another annoyance.
Please explain how much DC power will be propagated through that isolation
capacitor. Putting these in place will ensure that no DC can find its way
into the device.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To:
I will give it my best shot.
Consider a diode in series with a resistor, and connected to an AC
outlet. For the first half of the cycle the diode conducts, and a
positive current flows. For the second half, the diode does not conduct
and NO NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOWS, even though a negative
Duncan, I hate to keep repeating myself that the power can be measured by
analyzing the AC components only. When will you guys show why this is not
true? I suggest that you start with the simple system you proposed of a diode
in series with a resistor driven by an AC wall socket. Explain
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.infowrote:
I don't think Rossi would travel to the USA to see such a demo.
How about a YouTube video?
Eric
Ferromagnetism behaves like this. Ditto para- and dia-magnetism too, if I'm not
mistaken. Long range order is the watchword, if memory serves.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:03 AM
Subject: Re:
OK, you are mistaken with this analysis. The input power is determined by the
AC 50/60 hertz fundamental and the fundamental component of the current flowing
from the wall socket. The DC just comes along for the ride since it is
converted from some of the input AC power.
And yes, you can
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Dave, there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First off,
the insertion of an isolation capacitor between the main grid transformer
and the plug takes care of your short circuit problem. And then there's
the
Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making a
mistake about emissivity.
P = s*e*T^4 (s=Boltzmann's constant, e = emissivity, T=temp in deg K).
At a measured temperature, if the actual emissivity is lower than the value
used to calculate output power, then the
The tiny but regular oscillations of the platform enables the
synchronisation. However I bet if you constantly nudge the platform the
synchronisation will vanish.
Harry
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Best to keep these soldiers off of that long
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which
nobody else here has raised concern). Here it is
Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but
constant feeding
That is a good try. I agree with all that you say except for one key item.
1). No negative current flows due to the diode. 2). The instantaneous power
being delivered to the resistor is I^2*R as you suggest. 3). The DC rated clamp
on meter should measure the total RMS current provided it can
This is only true for sinusoidal waveforms. As soon as you introduce
non-sinusoidal waveforms, such as by using a diode, then different
calculations must be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor
On 5/27/2013 7:49 AM, David Roberson wrote:
All of the power being delivered into the
Excellent examples Terry!
Trying to get millions of these to sync-up is more akin to what's happening
in bulk matter, and I think it's obvious why the probability of that is
nearly nonexistent, which is why bulk matter behavior dominates our everyday
lives, and physical laws (theory).
-Mark
What? In the control regulation, everything is represented as either a voltage
or a current (because it's, like, electronics, duh). Normally, temperature
comes out of a thermocouple and is thus a voltage. The reference voltage, to
which the actual temperature voltage is compared in order to
Eric, the isolation capacitor does not serve a purpose in this discussion. It
would ensure that no DC gets through.
You assumption that no DC power exceeds the input power measured at the mains
should be accurate. It would be very difficult to keep excess DC flowing at a
higher level for
You mean an annoyance like the advance of the perihelion of Mercury? :)
OK, once again you furiously misunderstand. The isolation capacitor is in
series between the grid transformer and the wall plug. Behind the wall plug,
downstream of that capacitor, a DC power supply is connected in a T
I am not suggesting that there was any modification of the laboratory
wiring, such a thing would be ridiculous as you correctly point out.
What I AM suggesting is that an oscilloscope be used to measure the
CURRENT waveform at the electrical outlet, not the voltage. The voltage
is obviously a
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
