I am not an EE...i'm not even a electrician...but I thought a fuse blows when a certain level of power passes through it.
harry On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > What about a giraffe wearing a beret? > > Did you mean for that to make sense? > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Harry Veeder <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? > > harry > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> Nice idea in principle, but if the power actually supplied lies outside >> the frequency range of the measuring equipment, then this won't work. >> >> Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan >> and myself? >> >> Andrew >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Harry Veeder <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis >> >> No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit >> breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi >> claims. >> Harry >> >> >> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>
