I think that you're misunderstanding me. If-And-Only-If the power at the secondary is LESS than the peak power input to the primary, there will be arguments about the "heat after death" or "self-sustaining" operation. If the most energy that you put into the E-Cat is 1 kW, and 2 kW is observed at the output, then the H.A.D. operation is totally unnecessary, but may impress some people. However, if you put 1 kW into the input for two hours, seeing a slow build-to-parity at the secondary (where the secondary only achieves 1 kW), then how long the heat takes to decay when power is removed will be a bone of contention. I think H.A.D. could serve as a distraction. What we HAVE TO SEE is more kW at the secondary than is ever applied to the primary. Was that cogent? This was the prediction I'd supplied yesterday - that power gains would be reliant on the "no input" mode of operation, less than the peak power applied at the primary. And this would leave people arguing over residual, or stored, heat vs. a maintained reaction.
I truly hope that they are observing 3kW out, and less than 10 Amps peak power consumption. Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:58:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application. If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing the results ad infinitum. Why do you say that?!? It is much easier to be sure the heat is real when there is no input power. It is much more definitive, not less. What you say makes no sense to me. Please explain. - Jed
