on cobraf Cures calims the swedish made mistake. As you say here if when they say RMS they say RMS voltmeter or RMS ampmeter... I agree this is not enough. I've been using wattmeters from the time if was implemented with 2 circuits on a galvanometer... now it is DSP that make the multiplication/integration, not coils and inertia...
here are the reaction of Cures translated: Re: Swedish investment in E-cat halted after test<http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=562&p=2254#p2254> just a comment from "Cures"<http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747&reply_id=123487077#123487077>who claim that the swedish might have been badly using their meters: I've downloaded NyTeknik a publication of the caudal fin, but I cannot find the type of instruments used. I can only make assumptions. If they used tools broadband without a load in parallel with the capacitor of the engine type for washing machines have made a serious mistake. The power supply that uses Red check the tension of the lines of supply to the load by switching triac. When the triac zero switches voltage led with a single step, generates a rather extended harmonic spectrum The load consists of a major resistance locked between the two cylinders that you see in the report. A provision of this kind is modeled using RLC circuit. In view of the size of the resistance and the fact that is enclosed between two cylinders and is electrically isolated from each other, C is large enough. In addition, the internal resistance of wire is wrapped Tan while that the connection cable is a braided steel, allowing the l should be noticeable. Basically, you get a low-pass filter with a profile of resonant. When you have a circuit like this, all frequencies above a certain value, very low frequency are dismissed to the sender or for food and, if you measure the voltage at least a capacitor, you end up with twice also value actually absorbed by the load voltage. You are in the presence of reactive power is calculated as if it is active. On the other hand, instruments, voltmeter and ammeter, clamp, used by Rossi is a low frequency limited around the fundamental (50 Hz) and are unable to read the reactive power at frequencies above which then is also one that is not absorbed by the load I'm looking for more information and this one<http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747&reply_id=123487099#123487099> X Nevanlinna I read the manual I know they have a problem. The Reds got me just screamed (became deaf) that when he objected to the measure before it went to take a 60 W light bulb from and attached to the power supply. Its marked 59 W while their double. Have controcontestato saying that the power was too little. Then, (telepathy exists) has bought a stove from a few kW and the results were the same. His was a value close to the nominal and their double Mah ... For clamp Fluke should do a search. However, that fatigue is chasing people ... 2012/9/10 Jones Beene <[email protected]> > ** ** > > *From:* Andre Blum **** > > ** ** > > Can anyone on this forum comment on the True RMS meter that was used? The > link Frank supplied seems to suggest that one of its applications is to > find unexpected high currents.**** > > ** ** > > A true RMS meter of any kind is NOT sufficient in this situation. **** > > ** ** > > A dedicated power analyzer must be used, if we are dealing with a > duty-cycle correction or spiky input, as appears to be the case. We saw > this problem clearly back years ago with Naudin’s MAHG, which is actually a > very similar device to e-cat, except in the use of tungsten instead of > nickel.**** > > ** ** > > Naudin, who is quite experienced with prototypes and actually worked for > EDF (French grid utility) at the time – nevertheless measured input power > with a systemic 20:1 error. (gives one confidence in your power bill, if > you are French, n’est pas?). **** > > ** ** > > How did it happen? George or Terry may have a better recollection but IIRC > Naudin was pulsing the input power at low duty. He measured voltage and > current, but the current was across a shunt and the voltage was seen on the > PS meter. The duty cycle was 5%, so to make the duty cycle correction, > Naudin then multiplied voltage x current x 20, when he should have > corrected only the voltage – as the current was actual. Thus, he saw a most > remarkable COP of 20, when it was actually a COP of one; with a systemic > error of twenty. **** > > ** ** > > Actually it is not that simple – but had Naudin used a dedicated power > analyzer, there would have been no doubt in the results, which would have > been far less remarkable. AFAIK – despite years of pleading that error > still appears on Naudin’s site. **** > > ** ** > > Is Rossi (or his “expert” colonel) doing something similar? Probably.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
