Hi Jones, You wrote: > Hey, Robin and George... wait a minute---- > > Naudin apparently incorporated the low duty cycle in his > calculations (in a non-standard way) by figuring the "average > value" by multiplying the peak voltage (from a 12 volt power DC > battery power supply) by the duty cycle to give an average voltage > ... However, you now seem to be suggesting that he is off by a > factor of 20, because he did this -as if there was no duty cycle? > that's ridiculous ....
The problem is not that the duty cycle is incorporated in the voltage calculation. It is that it appears to be incorporated in both the voltage calculation and the current calculation. Both I and V were marked as average readings in earlier versions of the graphs on JLN's site. When it is incorporated in both readings by averaging it multiplies the resulting input power by (.05)^2 rather than the correct single (.05). To get the right answer we must average the peak power by applying the duty cycle factor only once. The average power in a pulsed system is not equal to V(avg)*I(avg). Using this incorrect method shows that a resistor is 20 times overunity at .05 duty factor. (snip) > He is using square waves so there is no need for a significant > power factor correction. He has a very fast O'scope. How can there > be a phasing problem? He is apparently-cross checking at the > battery itself - which is a DC reading (at least the battery > appears connected to a scope). Apparently you think that our objection is related to a power factor or phasing problem. No, it appears to be a pure calculation error. If JLN would clearly specify peak or average readings for his measured values any confusion would be eliminated. In pulsed power situations this is required information. > I think you guys are NOT giving the guy enough credit. I think he deserves great credit. This is an excellent experiment. But we all make mistakes sometimes and for those not familiar with pulsed power measurements this is not an obvious mistake. > > For him to be unknowingly putting enough power into the MAHG (the > same 100 watts he gets on output), using the low duty cycle, he > would need to be drawing approximately 4000 amp pulses from a 120 > amp battery (@ 5% DC) ... no way !! Actually 166 A (peak)* 12 V(peak) * .05 (duty factor) gives about 100 watts input at an average current of about 8 A and an average voltage of .6 V. > > You (Robin, at least) is willing to accept Mills equally > surprising claims - whereas Mills gives almost zero detail, and > often bases his P-out claims on guess-timates of what the power > would be IF the photon radiation were converted, and yet in > comparison, here we have what looks to be very fairly solid > readings of "real" power, not Mills' guesstimated power, and > yet...you guys are balking because of what, exactly? I cannot find any errors in Mills' power measurements that could reasonably create errors as large as the overunity output that he measures. JLN's control runs are all high duty cycle runs and thus there is no protection from duty cycle related systematic calculation errors. > ....yes, if memory serves, 6 years ago Naudin did follow Bearden's > dictates and instructions and reported erroneous power from the > MEG - is that what this is about? That was a stupid error, but it > was a VERY different situation....give the guy some credit, or > please at least let us know exactly why it is that your think the > data is off now. The MEG measurements were much more difficult due to the high frequency and high voltage combination. I think that JLN made a good attempt to get accurate readings on the MEG. > > I don't see the problem - yet I understand why the 20x figure > seems coincidental (and also why the 50 cycle thing seems > coincidental) - but surely we can come up with something more than > vague innuendo based on being overly influence by Bearden (which > is probably why he won't answer mail from the USA)... Perhaps I failed to make my earlier observations on the MAHG list clear enough. I have done pulse power measurements in so many prior experiments and the possible error was so clear to me that I thought it would be obvious to everyone. George Holz Varitronics Systems
