Probably; in any case, it would be an improvement. The majority of the paper is taken up by detailed calculations on the thermal emissions from the device - i.e. on the output side.
On re-reading the paper, I'm struck by a detail from the March 116 hour test. When the input is on, the power supplied exactly matches (up to error bars) the output power, namely about 820 W. I for one find this a curious data point. It's stated that there's a 35% duty cycle on the input, and for that reason alone we get an over-unity COP result. The TRIAC-based control box appears to have two modes - auto and manual (the paper makes no attempt to help us understand this). In auto mode, there's a switchover to pulsed mode but it's unclear what triggers this. I can only assume it's due to sensing the resistor temperature indirectly via a resistance estimate. In manual mode, the authors describe setting the power level, so presumably this is also an externally available control on the box. But who knows, really? And what is really happening during the OFF state of the waveform? If power is being snuck into the device here, then the COP = 1, and there is no magic. Note that, if this be the case, then it doesn't matter if you run the device for a day or a year; you will always measure over-unity COP even though the real COP is unity. When they describe the dummy measurements, they mention placing the meter in single phase mode directly across the resistor feed wires (it's single phase for the March test). They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it in manual mode. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Walker To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input power across the entire range of interest and rule out input fake, after which they were to report results similar to the ones that were reported this time around, would this be considered adequate evidence for a prima facie conclusion that Rossi's device is producing excess heat? Eric
