Constant current power supplies keep the power consumed by the load constant automatically through their internal circuitry.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not a science guy but I do have an engineering degree (only used a > few years). So I will dare a suggestion. I am fine if the knowledge is so > rusty that I am missing something. Using a constant current supply having > the two circuits in parallel and a variable resistor in serie with each > reactor. The variable resistor to be programmed so that the power always is > equal in both reactors. Stability is an issue but can be handled by > slowing the correction pace. > The variable resistors to be placed away from the experiment of course. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > [email protected] > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One way that this null hypothesis might be setup is to use two identical >> constant current power supplies and run the LENR reactor test side by side >> then switch the connection of the power supplies periodically between the >> null and functional reactor to show the energy gain is not a function of >> the power supply while the functional reactor is demonstrating LENR and the >> null is not. >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Alberto De Souza < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> When I said "To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an >>> experiment showing significant excess heat side by side with its null >>> hypothesis." >>> I meant "To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an >>> experiment showing large excess heat side by side with its null >>> hypothesis." >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If I not remember wrong, Swartz had serial tests of nanors. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:25:40 -0400, Alberto De Souza < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
