Seriously, I think the team who performed the test is more than able to use the PCE830. The 6V measured on V31 is probably due to a glitch somewhere in the measurements. I cant imagine that they would not notice that during the test.
The PF (0.48) is very intriguing. Its a proof that the heating system of the ECAT is more than a simple controlled heater. A heater (helicoidally wire) has a PF above 0.8. The control by a switch far below 50 Hz (ON/OFF) doesnt change the PF. There is than a frequency close to the 50 Hz that impact the PF. A value of 0.48 is like the PF of a discharge lamp. A superwave generator would have similar current and voltage over time as for a discharge lamp strange coincidence! _____ From: Claudio C Fiorini [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: samedi 25 mai 2013 22:59 To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:possible error in power-in calculation in Levi et al paper This is my first mail to this group. I just found an interesting comment in an italian blog. (http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/rossi-2/) A apparently german commentator writes about a picture that has been taken during the december 2012 test in Ferrara. The picture shows the cifers on the PCE830 input power measuring computer, together with a wrist clock showing date and time. The original posting is below, in italian language. I will translate now the message: The picture itself is here: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_123517565_2.jpg On the right side, you can see a wrist watch (model Suunto vectra). This watch shows 17:45, and below 12 14. According to the manual of the watch (internet download), the two number are showing the date: 14 of december (obviously 2012). The author made an enhanced picture of the watch: http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/3265/tojotsgt_jpg.htm 1 = time 2 = arrow showing that "time mode" was set, and date is showing below 3 = month 4 = day It is clear now, that this picture has been taken DURING the december test. (the test started 13th of december and ended 18th). Unfortunately, EXIF data has been erased. As can been seen, the power factor (PF) was 0.48 and (slightly) outside specification of the PCE830 computer. (valid values are from 0.5 to 1 see manual) Common values are 0.9 by the way. We see also, that tension #3 (V31 of the 3 phases) was only 6.3 V AC, while the other tensions were typical european mains tensions (abt 237 V AC). But current #3 was 6.18 A AC, meaning that energy was consumed on that third line. We may assume, that the tension input #3 was left open and that some noise on the hi Z input was read as "6.3 V AC". This has a consequence: the PCE830 computes a wrong total energy. Its value is about 33% too low. Instead of abt 1 kW we may assume 1.5 kW (real power), and about 3 kW apparent power (due to the bad pf-value). Because of the 1/3 duty cycle we may come to abt 500 W (real) instead of 360 W continous power as claimed by the autors. So, a copy of the video is necessecary to check if this was a short time error or a constant error. Claudio Here is the original posting in italian language: Robert Zellermann scrive: 24 maggio 2013 alle 7:04 pm Non lo so, se scrivo qui nel filo / thread giusto, non capisco bene landamento degli discorsi in questo blog. Ieri (23 maggio 2013 alle 1:18 pm) avevo fatto qui una domanda a proposito di una foto trovata nella rete. http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_123517565_2.jpg A destra vediamo un orologio della Suunto (tipo Vectra) che segna le 17:45, e in basso vediamo 12 14. Dal manuale dellorologio (trovato nel internet) si capisce che in basso viene indicata la data: il giorno 14 del dicembre 2012, proprio durante il test che andava, come sappiamo, dal 13 al 17 di dicembre. EXIF non ci aiuta, perché la foto fu trattata ulteriormente nel marzo 2013. Ho amigliorato la foto un po: http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/3265/tojotsgt_jpg.htm 1 = lora 2 = una freccia che indica che lorologio segna lora (time mode) 3 = mese 4 = giorno Si vede dalla foto (parlo della prima foto di cobraf) che in questo momento il power factor PF era leggermente fuori specificazione del PCE830 essendo 0,48. Un valore strano per resistenze ohmiche. Ma forse spiegabile se la pinza era posizionata a monte della black box. Strana anche la tensione V31 di 6,5 Volt, probabilmente disturbi su un cavo aperto e non collegato (entrata ad alta impedanza). Visto che la corrente sul cavo 3 era di 6,18 A, si può ipotizzare che fu consumata energia, energia che poi fu calcolata in modo sbagliato dal PCE830 visto la bassa tensione V31. Lerrore si riflette nel valore basso di solo un kW per la potenza reale. Allapello mancano in quel preciso momento circa 1460 W apparenti (reali circa la meta visto il PF estremamente basso). Forse lenergia consumata totale in quel momento (ciclo ON) fu circa 1,5 kW (reali), apparenti circa il doppio. Con un duty cycle di 1/3 la potenza era di circa 500 W invece di 360 W (assumendo che lentrata 3 non era collegata alla tensione 3 durante tutto il test.) Conviene di confrontare questa foto con i dati del preprint di Levi e di chiedere una copia del video fatto per verificare se lentrata 3 era fuori uso durante tutto il test. Robert(o)
