Basically the error was probably to use a good RMS ampmeter (half job), instead of either a bad ampmeter (Rossi) or a good powermeter (What I was assuming because anything else is not professional).
probably if there is a Triac variator, it is normal to have huge RMS of interference, yet the impedance of the e-cat might dephase it totally, making effective power of those HF, null. maybe we have found more loose than Rossi. Anyway Rossi was loose, because if it was my reactor at leas I would use a powermetter, and even maybe a wave synthetizer/reformer... I was using some in the 80s to protect TV. 2012/9/10 Andre Blum <[email protected]> > And, unless I understand wrong, (and depending on the algorithm used to > give your every half-second-or-so display update), there may have been an > accidental correlation between the PWM duty cycle of the resistive heater > and the measurement cycle of the true RMS meter. This is more likely when > the PWM signal is somehow synced with the AC cycle, (which would not be > such a bad idea). > > Especially now we are talking a factor 2-3 in measurements, we could well > be seeing effects like these. > > Rossi confirms to me over mail that they have completed the test without > PWM and using a variac, and that they stand by their own measurements. > > Andre > > > On 09/10/2012 12:24 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > ** ** > > *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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > >
