Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

Yes, if they put the whole thing in a calorimeter, they could measure the
input power at the wall.  I could be convinced by that kind of a setup.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:18 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Good point, they would have been smart to place everything in a large
> calorimeter box like the one Earth-tech designed.
>
> Why not?
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
> 
>
> MOAC Overview - Earth Tech
>
> 
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot of power, that does make
> it difficult to account for input power. Perhaps the generator itself could
> be placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like Mizuno's.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 Good point, they would have been smart to place everything in a large 
calorimeter box like the one Earth-tech designed.
Why not?

MOAC Overview - Earth Tech

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
MOAC Overview - Earth Tech


 |

 |

 |


   Jed Rothwell wrote:  
 > If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot of power, that does make it 
 > difficult to account for input power. Perhaps the generator itself could be 
 > placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like Mizuno's. 



  
  
  

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the
> discussion about accurate meters could be premature.
>
> From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if
> anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup
> - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is
> generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE -
> as high as 90%.
>

My first thought was to run the waveform output through a joule heater
submerged in water, as a calibration. I suppose that might not produce the
same profile as the waveform generator attached to the gadget.

It is not a simple problem. If the waveform generator itself consumes a lot
of power, that does make it difficult to account for input power. Perhaps
the generator itself could be placed in an air-flow calorimeter, like
Mizuno's. That is a large plastic box with reflective padded aluminum
insulation around it, and air flowing through it. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTexcessheat.pdf

For that matter, put the waveform generator and the gadget in the box.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jack Cole]

There can be non-malicious reasons for not reporting that data as Jones
notes.  I would add self-deception to that list, which I think is likely in
this case.  Everyone close to the matter believes Godes couldn't have made
a mistake on the input power measurement.  While understandable, it is
likely the Achilles heal of the whole thing.

Ultimately, if you can't get more power out than you put in from the wall,
it is useless, and is most probably an error.  To prove it isn't, you have
to do a lot more convincing experiments than have been presented by Godes
et. al. so far.  You have to answer every skeptical question that is
reasonable with data and/or explanation.  They have not even come close to
doing this, but instead try to rely on the authority of the inventor /
tester.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other
> Dardik spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be
> extremely lossy, especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple
> signal generators, all of which carry their own losses.
>
> No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the
> discussion about accurate meters could be premature.
>
> From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if
> anyone were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup
> - versus the effective power of the complex single waveform which is
> generated and going into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE -
> as high as 90%.
>
> Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It
> does not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring
> the losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did
> not want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP
> is what funders want to see.
>
> There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be
> constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy
> localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently
> generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost
> no flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven
> by a DC source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to
> be much less - and that situation would then accurately reflect the true
> thermodynamic balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall
> power at the start for one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do
> this yet (or did he?) since perhaps he is not certain that he knows the
> most efficient waveform. He would not want to get locked in and perhaps he
> is still searching for more.
>
> Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in
> the report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most
> efficient superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be
> static as opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning.
>
> We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the
> similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of
> Missouri moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with
> Dardik long ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more.
>
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>
>
> To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be
> accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?
>
> You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is
> not too high for a $20 meter.
>
> This one has good reviews:
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jones Beene]

 To be fair, the pulse creation of Godes (as well as all of the other Dardik 
spin-off techniques for superwaves) would be expected to be extremely lossy, 
especially if one tries to superimpose waves from multiple signal generators, 
all of which carry their own losses. 

No meter or measurement can change that underlying situation, so the discussion 
about accurate meters could be premature.
 From there on, everything is supposition. We can probably agree that if anyone 
were to meter the power going into say a three pulse generator setup - versus 
the effective power of the complex single waveform which is generated and going 
into the cell, then the combined losses could be HUGE - as high as 90%. 

Thus - it is no secret why that kind of data would not be available. It does 
not accurately reflect the true power balance. Neither does ignoring the 
losses, as they are presently doing. It is likely that the inventor did not 
want SRI to include that information since - having a high apparent COP is what 
funders want to see. 

There is an obvious solution to this situation. A custom circuit could be 
constructed to create a known waveform which works to enhance the energy 
localization effect - and which is designed from the start to efficiently 
generate the exact waveform. Was this done? This solution provides almost no 
flexibility, so maybe it was not done. With a dedicated circuit driven by a DC 
source, which is easily measured, the losses would be expected to be much less 
- and that situation would then accurately reflect the true thermodynamic 
balance. A DC source eliminates the need to rectify wall power at the start for 
one thing. One can imagine that Godes did not do this yet (or did he?) since 
perhaps he is not certain that he knows the most efficient waveform. He would 
not want to get locked in and perhaps he is still searching for more. 

Ideally, this kind of information should have been more fully covered in the 
report, or better yet - some of the money used to build the most efficient 
superwave generator possible, assuming that the waveform can be static as 
opposed to dependent of feedback and constant hand tuning.
We would all like to know more. Especially the Dardik connection and the 
similarities with what was going on with Duncan, at the University of Missouri 
moving to Texas Tech along with staff some of whom had been with Dardik long 
ago, and who is almost never mentioned any more.


Jed Rothwell wrote: 
 
 Jones Beene wrote:


 A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell checking 
:-)


To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be accurate in 
this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?
You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is not 
too high for a $20 meter.
This one has good reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T


  
  

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

A clamp meter does KVA - and power factor correction (but not spell
> checking :-)
>

To clarify, you are saying that a simple $20 wattmeter might not be
accurate in this case, and a $200 clamp-on meter is better. Right?

You could use both, I suppose. The input power to the signal generator is
not too high for a $20 meter.

This one has good reviews:

https://www.amazon.com/Poniie-PN2000-Electricity-Electrical-Consumption/dp/B0777H8MS8/ref=sr_1_28?crid=26UG8JE9S0Q3T

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Brian Ahern]

The failure to measure, record and discuss wall power baseline measurements is 
the hallmark f a fraudulent effort.


From: Terry Blanton 
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 3:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast



On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:59 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Thereforw to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC 
wattmeter from Amazon for 20 bucks to do the job of ascertaining real input 
power from the grid. It is beyond belief to suggest that this was not done.

Most of those puppies measure KW and not KVA.

[Vo]:Ideal solution

[Mark Goldes]

You will like it http://also.photobodies.com  

 

 

Mark Goldes