I suppose I should have stated that in a more appropriate manner. What I was attempting to get across was that the waveforms must not contain a DC component. Any DC portion would behave exactly as Dr. McKubre explained and appear as a valid input signal which remains after averaging and is included in the input power calculations.
The skeptics were implying that noise due to bubbles bursting at random, etc. would invalidate the measurements. In that case invalidation is due to inaccurate measurement of the input power and energy for the cell. They were concerned that the AC signals arising out of their assumed process would cause an error in the input energy calculation and that has been shown to be a bad conclusion when a constant current input source is used. Let me know if you are still confused since it is important that we set the records straight and dispose of skeptical ideas. If you see anyone on a site suggesting that Dr. McKubre is making this error please correct them as soon as possible. A simple spice program can make the concept crystal clear to anyone left in doubt. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 12:34 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example of that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act. Is this a safe assumption? Eric
