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 <andrew...@att.net> 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 <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *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 <andrew...@att.net> 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 > >
