> Where is this issue being raised? People skeptical brings this up, of cause as you say it's possible to sill be fooled, it needs more data to decide. I just wanted to see if there was an alternate explanation, and if it is sound. P(t) = U(t)I(t) does alternate sign for suitable phase differences. The measured P is the sum over all those P(t)., The cable losses is all a summation of R I(t)*I(t). I just find it strange that it all was a focus on temperature dependent resistance that didn't add up as a counter argument. I think that the camera measurements is more critical when it comes to issues atm.
Regards Stefan On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe > > > > I looked at the Lugano report, trying to understand the issue with the > implicate power meter > > e.g. why the power loss in the cable does not follow the power measured. > > > > > > > > Where is this issue being raised? > > > > It will likely be impossible to know the answer in retrospect, but it > could be consistent with altered wiring, such as a version of the circuit > of Peter Thieberger. > > > > Thieberger described (but AFAIK did not test) a circuit that an > unscrupulous person could use to fool common meters. This is somewhat > easier to do with 3-phase cable. > > > > > https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-e-cat-cold-fusion-or-scientific-fraud-624f15676f96 > > > > Indeed - as this relates to Lugano - it was questioned that the current > clamps used by Levi could be fooled exactly this way – but there is no > evidence of this having happened. > > > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/05/rossi-on-the-clamps-in-the-lugano-e-cat-test/ > > > > > > > > > > >
