*
Andrea Rossi
September 10th, 2012 at 1:15 PM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=713&cpage=3#comment-317304>
Dear Andre Blum:
I do not make electric measures, I let them made by specialists who
are in the team of validators and certificators of the Hot Cat: for
example, today they made a new measurement with new instrumentation
which, substantially, again, confirmed the data of our preliminar
report. As I said, and I repeat, these measurements will go ahead
for at least other 2-3months, then the results will be published in
a scientific magazine, after the due peer reviewing. It has been not
very serious that a technician invited from us for a measure, by the
way under NDA, has published very dibious results, after few hours
of measurement, while the professors that are making the validation
need months before saying anything. Please wait the end of the
validation, and we will also read in the report the characteristic
of all the instrumentation used. Right now a Prof. of electric
measures is taking care of this issue, and he already has discovered
the errors of the guy brought here from Hydrofusion, which we,
obviously, respect: errors are normal in our job. Only they who do
not work do not commit errors.It takes toime to be sure that there
are no errors, and the reactor at high temperature is under test
only since few months.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*
Andre Blum
September 10th, 2012 at 11:07 AM
<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=713&cpage=3#comment-317190>
Dear Mr Rossi,
Did you (sometimes / usually) use True RMS ammeters for your own
input power measurements?
Thank you,
Andre
On 09/10/2012 02:08 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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
