What I would do is put a 10 Ohm resistor inside the 1kOhm. 0.92*10=9V That would be much safer and wouldn't get as hot.
How hard is it to properly measure all input power?
-
-
How hard is it to properly measure all input power?
I was joking earlier.
Given the simplicity and magnitude of this latest claim it should be easy to measure input power, output power and COP.
-
I was joking earlier.
Given the simplicity and magnitude of this latest claim it should be easy to measure input power, output power and COP.
Obviously,
your comments are much like mine.
I graduated from college and went to work for C Watters, the owner of a mechanical engineering firm, learned a lot from that man
-
what Frank saw in the early spring was a much less developed version of the E-cat SKL : still plugged into the mains for input
It appears that, even recently, neither the certifiers nor the partners are seeing a closed loop setup, as I had thought.
Gerard McEk
November 7, 2020 at 4:59 AM
(snip)
3. Do you expect any public happening (publication, presentation, paper) regarding the Ecat this year?
4. Were most or all tests done by the certification agency done on a self looped Ecat SKL?
5. Were self looped Ecat SKL(s) in operation witnessed by Partners the certification Agency? (snip)
Andrea Rossi
November 7, 2020 at 7:23 AM
Gerard McEk: (snip)
3- I am afraid not
4- no
5- no
(snip)
So a bit of bad news on two fronts : The demo is likely not going to happen later this year, but next ; and the self looped E-cat running from a battery has not yet been demonstrated to others (although Rossi has said he has achieved it).
.
-
"Achieved it" makes it sound oh so difficult.
He claims it needs 115W at 12V. That would be trivial to provide from a battery. Charging the battery from 920V output is only slightly harder. Perhaps an hours work to design a circuit and order parts, next day an hour or two to built it. Job done with the afternoon free to play tennis.
-
self looped E-cat running from a battery has not yet been demonstrated to others
.
He has improved the "closed loop" ecat so many times it no longer works.
-
Smashed his SKL in frustration, maybe? Better than Trump throwing toys out of his pram!
-
I have no fundamental objection to this setup.
At this point self-powering is not required.
However, I would replace the mains input with a motor-generator, or a battery pack sufficient to drive the control system for long enough that it would be impossible to produce the stated output.
I would put an oscilloscope across the load resistor to ensure there are no suspicious waveforms that could fool the ammeter.
I would also beef up the input power monitoring, and all the other instruments and the load resistor should be freshly calibrated.
-
I would put an oscilloscope across the load resistor to ensure there are no suspicious waveforms that could fool the ammeter.
What specifications would the oscilloscope need to have at the least? The plasma reaction may produce waveforms with significant energy up to the GHz range.
-
Alan, the whole point of Rossi's delaying tactic from December last year to now was the he supposedly discovered and proved he could run the ecat closed loop, you know, raising toasts and all. Saying that:
"At this point self-powering is not required." seems like an overly generous offer to a conman.
-
I would put an oscilloscope across the load resistor to ensure there are no suspicious waveforms that could fool the ammeter.
Would you provide a numerical example of a “suspicious waveform” that could fool the DC ammeter?
-
Would you provide a numerical example of a “suspicious waveform” that could fool the DC ammeter?
I find this old page useful to understand how to fool a multimeter
-
The plasma output might be high frequency AC or anyhow alternating pulses of very brief duration. In the Stockholm presentation (the unedited version) Rossi also suggested something along these lines (in Italian while discussing with other people, at about 1:28:30 if you have access to the video).
I'm not sure how AC ammeters would respond to this sort of type of signal, but in my own plasma electrolysis tests using a standard DC ammeter in series with the cathode, under certain conditions when RF noise is the highest I get values close to 0 A or even negative current values. I'm assuming that's when the output is oscillating the most.
-
The plasma output might be high frequency AC or anyhow alternating pulses of very brief duration. In the Stockholm presentation (the unedited version) Rossi also suggested something along these lines (in Italian while discussing with other people, at about 1:28:30 if you have access to the video).
I'm not sure how AC ammeters would respond to this sort of type of signal, but in my own plasma electrolysis tests using a standard DC ammeter in series with the cathode, under certain conditions when RF noise is the highest I get values close to 0 A or even negative current values. I'm assuming that's when the output is oscillating the most
In general backfires from plasmas are blocked by chokes.
Common examples are applied in Fluorescent lamp electronics.
Such chokes can also help measuring current in systems with plasma disturbance.
-
I think the general idea here is that the plasma disturbance itself is an anomaly worth harnessing rather than filtering/blocking out.
On a related note, here is the relevant excerpt about AC from the Stockholm presentation that I transcribed when the full video got released. It seems to translate relatively well to English with Google Translate:
* * *
[1:28:52] [Vassallo] Ma c'è anche una produzione di energia elettrica oltre quella termica?
[Fabiani] Che domanda!
[Rossi] Noi facciamo la termica.
[Vassallo] (*inaudible*)
[Rossi] No, ho capito… no, la sua domanda è più profonda…
[Fabiani] Me l'ha fatta prima!
[Rossi] Lui ha chiesto dell'energia elettrica diretta. Ci stiamo lavorando. C'è.
[1:29:08] [Fabiani] Ci fa delle domande capziose, il professore! *laughs*
[Rossi] No. Ho detto c'è, c'è. C'è. Ma non siamo ancora capaci di…
[Vassallo] Ci diamo del Tu, abbiamo detto, no?
[Rossi] Sì, sì, Scusa. C'è, ma non siamo ancora capaci di usarla(?). C'è. Perché, vediamo dall'oscilloscopio che, noi, quando… quando lo usiamo in un altro modo, noi vediamo… noi sappiamo benissimo che troviamo solo corrente che si muove in un solo lato(?) su un tempo quadrato(??). Noi lo vediamo benissimo. Però, con l'oscilloscopio, vediamo - no? - usandolo in un altro modo, che c'è una corrente… sotto, che non è nostra. Secondo me (*inaudible*) non può essere nostra. (*inaudible*) Noi qui dentro facciamo corrente continua. Abbiamo un'alternata, ma facciamo la continua. Poi ci troviamo dell'alternata che non può essere, non può essere nostra.
[Levi] Esatto.
[Rossi] Non siamo ancora capaci di… ma c'è.
[Vassallo] Ok. Se tanto va… quindi però se c'è, qua è dissipata.
[Rossi] Sì, viene… viene termalizzata.
[Vassallo] Viene dissipata.
[Rossi] Viene termalizzata.
[Vassallo] Va bene.
-
I think the general idea here is that the plasma disturbance itself is an anomaly worth harnessing rather than filtering/blocking out.
This may be true of course.
I should have mentioned that in the case of measuring a 'rossi case' the chokes are required to apply to the measurement methods (e.g. in series with the measurement leads). -
If he is somehow measuring only or mostly the output spikes, then I guess that would remove the observed effect.
-
If he is somehow measuring only or mostly the output spikes, then I guess that would remove the observed effect.
Excuse my ignorance : I've heard of non RMS multimeters being fooled, but what about true RMS meters, such as the Peaktech 3430 Rossi uses as per your post 146594?
QuoteEquipment listed in the ECW short report:
Wattmeter: Perel E305EM5G https://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?id=382032
Power supply: XD-360-12 (couldn't find it, but could be a standard switching-type 360W 12V fixed voltage PSU)
Ammeter: PEAKTECH 3430 https://www.peaktech.de/produc…rodukt/peaktech-3430.html
Resistor: Mouser TE1000B1K0J https://eu.mouser.com/ProductD…nectivity-CGS/TE1000B1K0J
-
I'm not an expert either and mostly only have experience with cheap models, but as far as I am aware of, depending on the meter, the True RMS capability might not operate in all modes, or might need a regular waveform (even if highly distorted) to give reliable results.
The Peaktech 3430 manual mentions:
QuoteTrue RMS Measurements
This model measures AC voltages and currents in True RMS and is therefore independent of the waveform to make an accurate measurement. Most alternating voltages and currents are expressed in rms values called the root meander (RMS) value. The RMS value is the square root of the averaging of the square of AC voltage or current value. But they actually measure the average value of the input voltage or current assuming that the voltage or current is a sine wave. Therefore, rectifier circuit multimeters are faulty if the input voltage or the current has a waveform other than a sine wave.
-
I find this old page useful to understand how to fool a multimeter
No, these examples refer to a lower reading of the DC meter not to an overestimation of the real value.
"Suspicious waveform" means a waveform able to provoke an overestimate reading of the DC ammeter.
