that is what I've heard, confirmed by the spec of the powermeter http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm
which have sampling period around that value by the way I'm EE, but I know enough to be careful about everything... What I'm sure is that if any fraud can be missed, any fraud can be found if you are free to choose the instrument, and DC is easy to find. This is why Nelso insisted to be free with Rossi in an earlier test and was suspiscious... This is why he was so positive with defkalion to be free... It is easier the detect a fraud with dummy instruments, and psychology, than with the best instruments. below 60kW the power meter does the job, above 60kHz the skin effect block most and cause overheating of cables . 2013/5/26 Andrew <[email protected]> > ** > 60 KHz limit? Where did you get that figure? Are you an EE? > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > with skin effect, and 60kHz limit, DC is the only option, assuming other > components plugge are not destroyed immediately. > > > 2013/5/26 Andrew <[email protected]> > >> ** >> 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. >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>> *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 >>> >>> >> >
