Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly
due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If
input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the
device itself.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being
emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is
3 and the duty cycle is 33%. This is by definition.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs.
When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious
dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is
applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that
value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3. This
is what they say in the report.
The maximum instantaneous peak power output should be greater than the peak
input. This is consistent. Operation at low temperatures and therefore COP
are limited. I prefer to see them run her at full warp, but control issues
make this difficult for long duration tests.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test
p22.
Emitted Power
E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24)
Instantaneous Power Consumption
E-Cat HT2
= (920 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25)
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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 <andrew...@att.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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 <andrew...@att.net> 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
