I mean "(very truthful, but we need two ammeters, therefore, problems with skeptics)".
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alberto De Souza < [email protected]> wrote: > If we put the heaters in series, we are sure the current is the same in > both. It is easy to measure the voltage on each one of them with a hand > voltimeter. With current and voltage, we can compute the resistance of each > one and the power each one is dissipating. > > Conversely, if we put them in parallel, the voltage is the same. But we > have to measure the current on each one of them. One can do that with a > series ammeter (very truthful, but we need to ammeters, therefore, problems > with skeptics) or with a inductive one (not so much truthful because the > measurement is indirect; problems with skeptics). I would go with the > series circuit. One just need more voltage from the variac transformer to > power two reactors. > > Alberto. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The resistance of the two legs of the circuit components will change as >> a function of temperature. Thus, if power input is to be the same or even >> predictable, the resistances of the coils along their length as a function >> of temperature should be known. This bit of information is not trivial. >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 1:57 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc., >> >> Series and parallel circuits >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits >> >> In a series circuit, the current through each of the components is the >> same, and the voltage <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage> across the >> circuit is the sum of the voltages across each component.[1] >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H321-1> >> In a parallel circuit, the voltage across each of the components is the >> same, and the total current is the sum of the currents through each >> component.[3] >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H324-3> >> >> We would also need to show that the current to the two reactors was the >> same using two ammeters connected to the heater coil of each reactor. >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Would we not want to wire the reactors in parallel to avoid a voltage >>> drop between the two reactors if they were connected in series? >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Alberto De Souza < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Alain, you are right in your analysis. A skeptic may point out all >>>> the problems you have mentioned. But we have something new now: MFMP and >>>> their live science approach. If they show (live) the complete process of >>>> puting the two reactors in series and the reactor with fuel shows >>>> significantly higher temperature for enough time, it is done. No skeptic >>>> whining will be strong enough to change the tide. All big-funded >>>> laboratories in world will try and replicate the results in the following >>>> few days (all relevant data for replication will be in the Internet). MFMP >>>> is doing everything right, and they are using the weapons of today - >>>> immediate socialization of information. If they are successful in a >>>> experiment as I have suggested, i.e. a live experiment with a clear null >>>> hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), they will >>>> make history. >>>> >>>> To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment >>>> showing significant excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis. >>>> Either the experimenters try to show excess heat with calorimetry (too >>>> hard) or they do the experimental test and the null hyposthesis in >>>> different moments and not taking proper care with the control variables. >>>> >>>> Alberto. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> hidden wire, RF supply, solar cell, can explain an apparent >>>>> self-sustain. >>>>> >>>>> David have a good idea, that skeptic do the experiment themselves. >>>>> some have done in their time and now they are here ;-) accused of >>>>> fraud an delusion. >>>>> >>>>> moreover most skeptic refuse to experiment, and when experimenting >>>>> have a tendency to reject any success and not to try long. >>>>> It have to be easy. >>>>> >>>>> easy, with a theory, with a practical interest. >>>>> >>>>> I'm shocked today by the fact that most people instead of saying "it >>>>> is unreal", say me "show me the reactor in home depot"... >>>>> >>>>> either a theory or an application. >>>>> there is no room in Science for unexplained phenomenon that are not on >>>>> the market. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-03-20 16:50 GMT+01:00 Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Alain, all of these difficulties can be overcome by a self >>>>>> sustained system. 3.2x system can vaporize, condense at certain hight, >>>>>> and >>>>>> use the fall of water to generate power. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
