server seems stuck. resending ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
p22. Emitted PowerE-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power ConsumptionE-Cat HT2 = (920 - 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Andrew <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured equal in the report in the pulse ON state. One would have thought that, if the device truly is generating its own energy, that this should not be the case. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control box, it's able to pass them on to the device, perhaps with some customisation. The device, being chiefly ohmic, will dissipate DC and will likely also dissipate RF. So no customisation by the control box of the extras is in principle necessary - the power simply gets passed along to the device, which consumes it and generates heat as a result. Now, as I've described, the shenanigans chiefly occur during the pulse OFF state, so there will have to be some customisation in the control box. The idea here is to dissipate the extras during pulse ON and pass them along during pulse OFF. The mains doesn't know about the pulse schedule, so cannot itself switch the extras in or out (actually, a Byzantine arrangement could be made to work in this way, but I'm not going that far out). Since no type of electronics control circuitry could survive colocated with the device, the implication is that the control box has to dissipate significant power continuously. That raises a question about the control box temperature. Since it's a sealed unit, and we're talking a couple hundred watts at least, it would have to get bloody hot. There's another data point we don't have. But you'd think they would have mentioned it. I'm talking myself out of this, aren't I? :) Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Walker To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total energy difference as measured over 100+ hours. Therefore, it seems that the only workable theory of possible deception is A). I recall Hartman clarifying that measurements were taken on the mains side (from Jed's post). I am not too familiar with circuitry. I assume that either (1) the measurement equipment (including the laptop) will need some kind of single-phase conversion in order to work off of the same mains, or (2) they will have to be routed to a separate source (in the case where the mains side has been tampered with). Assuming (1) for the moment, how easy or hard would it be to filter out hidden DC or AC when constructing the single phase conversion in order to protect the measurement equipment? Would you need a heavy transformer? Eric
