You have a point. Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate modifications. Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to hit it in the ballpark? To me, the most important question is to see if the input power is in the vicinity of 5J. If it is, that would be a slam dunk for Mills cause you can't deny the output power. Those Solar panels have known efficiency figures. So, output power appears to be more or less accurate, which would bring the COP to 100 or more - more or less.
Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Higgins To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt Last night it struck me that these voltage measurements are going to require a compensating loop to subtract out the induced voltage in the measurement loops. If you had a simple twisted pair wire to make the measurement, you would still end up with a measurement loop through which the magnetic fields from the welding action will flow. These magnetic fields will induce a voltage in the measurement loop, even if the voltage across the gap is 0V. To get rid of this error voltage, you need to make the measurements with a compensating loop present. The compensating loop will cancel this induced voltage by being connected in anti-series with the measurement connection. I have never had to do this in other experiments because the currents were so low in those cases, but it is probably necessary in this case. I don't know if Mills' team knew to do this. Also, it would be possible to measure the current with a clip-on probe. Such a probe only measures AC, so you would have to integrate the waveform that you measure and use the condition that at t=0, the current was 0. You would also have to calibrate with an AC current. It would probably be useful to do both current measurements. Just doing a control calorimetry experiment is not good enough. Let's say you are using a porous titanium particle to hold the milligrams of water that supposedly compose the hydrino reaction. Encapsulate a dry particle in wax and detonate it underwater and measure the energy that heated the water. Then, add the water to the titanium particle and encapsulate it in wax [one way to do this might be to freeze the particle with its water and then coat it with wax]. Then repeat the experiment and see how the energy obtained from the temperature rise in the water compared. This comparison is simple only if the electrical energy input in both cases was the same - which is not likely. So you would still need to measure the electrical energy from the current and voltage waveforms to make sense of the results. These are the kinds of details that go into research that is unassailable - it is meticulous work. Bob Higgins On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper arms as a current shunt. Connect a lead across two points on one arm. Use another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current across the two points and see what voltage you get out. Calculate the shunt resistance as a calibration factor. Now you can use a digital storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the current waveshape. Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small. Then you can capture the voltage waveform. I don't think it will exceed 50V. To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against. You will need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input energy. There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of information.
