They're not chopped. They are measured from the wall going into the control box. They are symmetrical sinusoids. The PCE 830 has no problem measuring the power associated with each clamp, even if a clamp is reversed. All it would do is reverse the sign on the reversed clamp. And like I said before, anybody with half a brain would see that.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
Legally all burden is on IH. The law is very clear. If you don't complain in time, then the hurdle is very, very high.
That's not true.you know. The law allows for the instance where a deceived party does not realise the deceit for some time after the event. The case books are full of such cases. Just consider a number of corporate acquisitions, where despite due diligence the acquired company is later found to have deceived the acquirer. Getting away with something for a while does not mean you can claim innocence.
-
Yes, voltage inputs will be sine, however currents will be chopped.
-
Yes, voltage inputs will be sine, however currents will be chopped.
It doesn't matter. The currents will vary based on the load. The PCE-830 will measure the proper power regardless. It will just flip the sign on a reversed clamp. That's it!
-
Did you identify a mistake?
Can you show your diagram and the waveforms you are simulating? It is tricky to get the thyristor controls right. I did check my spreadsheet against a circuit simulator back then. Maybe we are assuming a different schematic.
I was only able to copy the numbers of your spreadsheet from Google drive, not the formula's.
I found the following with respect to the values in your spreadsheet.
Integrating your Pinst colomn, starting with the first value and then for every next position adding the instantaneous power times a time interval of 20 milliseconds * .5 degree/360 degree to the previous value (numerical integration) sums at the end of the column up to .8662. That is the energy dissipated in 20 milliseconds. to get the power we have to multiply this by 50 which gives 43.3 Watt.
That is the same value I see when simulating with Microcap, which directly can calculate the power dissipation in the resistor.
The schematic I use is the same as yours with the difference that I simulate the Thyristor by a time controlled switch, which is easier to implement then adding a real thyristor.
Timing of the pulses is exactly as per your spreadsheet.
-
Your argument has too many assumptions - is this because you were not aware of the holes, or because you feel they should be ignored when presenting rhetoric?
@THH: Can you show us the extraline (tube) where the hot extra water is flowing back and directly fed into the E-cat pumps?
--> Otherwise you just commented your attitude.
Bdw: The feed water container was inside the E-cat. That's the point where they measured its T (average 70C)!
The main reason why IH will loose this game, is due to people like THH & JED, which are not able to distinguish between legal requirements and personal wishes/hopes/animosities.
There is no way that AR had no LENR effect. It's just a question how big it was.
All cheap cheats presented by IH have been refuted so far. If the Lugano “refutation” by TC was the beginning of IH's problems, then I wish good look to the author. May be he will be responsible for the most severe investors deception of this century, when it turns out, that the effective COP today is somewhat higher than in the Lugano report. (Where AR was not allowed to use the SSM mode!)
To be fair: 1MW is a cheat figure too, given by marketing requirements AR had to follow and had to sustain. Thus only a true independent test will allow us to draw a final conclusion.
-
I used to know an old doctor, now dead, who actually met and treated Papp for a clearly self-inflicted gun shot wound of his arm which Papp claimed happened when he was shot in the desert by a hitman and managed to escape. He said Papp was a flaming nut case (not his words-- he said a florid paranoid schizophrenic).
Some interesting bits and pieces from California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act:
"CMIA prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient, enrollee, or subscriber without first obtaining an authorization, except as specified."
"CMIA defines “medical information” to mean any individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor regarding a patient’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment."
"Any individual may bring an action against any person or entity that has negligently released confidential information or records, for either or both nominal damages of $1,000 and the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the patient"
"Any person or entity who knowingly and willfully obtains, discloses, or uses medical information in violation of CMIA shall be liable for an administrative fine not to exceed $2,500 per violation."
And the federal HIPAA regulations say:
""health care provider" includes close to all entities in the business of doctors, clinics, psychologists, dentists, chiropractors, nursing homes and pharmacies."
And also according to both CMIA and HIPAA, this all applies for up to 50 years after the patients death.
https://books.google.co.uk/boo…t%20after%20death&f=false
https://consumercal.org/about-…-medical-information-act/
Oops! .... I wonder if you've ever pissed off someone enough that they fancy claiming this apparent bounty on your head? You probably have, by my reckoning Doc.
-
@IJ Fanboy
@THH and andrea.s,
All you get is a different sign on the inverted clamp. So if you have had -I1, +I2, and +I3, anybody with a half a brain would know that the total current is I1 + I2 + I3, not -I1 + I2 + I3. The PCE-830 will still calculate the correct power for each clamp.
That is not true for the power calculation
The power is calculated on the PCE 830 by integrationg the instantenious power over the time period.
Instantenious power is calculated as i1*V1 + I2*V2 + I3*V3
Since V3 was not connected and thus I3 is zero this reduces to i1*V1 + I2*V2 .
Reversing a clamp, for example on I1 inverts the polarity of I1 and in that case the formula reduces to -i1*V1 + I2*V2 which is certainly not the same and will result in a different power reading.
The PCE manual for that reason states : Make sure thecurrent flows from the front of the current probe to the back of it.
If the PCE 830 was insensitive to the direction, they would not have made such a statement.
-
Measuring 3-phase power that is chopped is not easy due to potential multiple current paths, add triacs to that and you can have real problems. Most certainly the PCE830 will not do anything intelligent like auto reverse a current probe, it all up to the operator to set things up correctly, as is the case with almost all test equipment.
-
You are right on the absolute powers in the spreadsheet. At some point I reduced the step from 1 to 0.5 degrees to have a better resolution and forgot to correct the average formula (for twice the no. of samples). Thanks for spotting that.
This however changes nothing about the key point the spreadsheet wants to make, which is: when inverting a clamp (I1 in my spreadsheet) the power reading is wrong and the apparent COP varies with the conduction interval.
For low regimes it may go down to 1 or less, and when increasing the conduction time (thus average power) it increases arbitrarily. If the current weren't chopped at all, apparent power would be zero, i.e. infinite COP.
I will upload the corrected spreadsheet shortly.
[ETA: uploaded the corrected spreadsheet in .zip format as well hoping formulas are readable that way]
(.ods) https://drive.google.com/open?…ubncFIhCFaNF83OUgzUDcwenM
-
They're not chopped. They are measured from the wall going into the control box. They are symmetrical sinusoids. The PCE 830 has no problem measuring the power associated with each clamp, even if a clamp is reversed. All it would do is reverse the sign on the reversed clamp. And like I said before, anybody with half a brain would see that.
Indeed - which would make total power 1/3 measured of real. And you would not see the separate phases if you were not looking for them - Levi and the mice seem to be remarkably biddable when told by Rossi how to do experiments, and Rossi seems remarkably good at making obvious electrical errors.
However with triac control you do not get symmetrical sinusoid currents, you get weird currents. Even so if per-phase power is the same for all phases you get 1/3 of real power read and COP=2 for a single reversed clamp.
However andrea.s has a point. If waveforms are not sinusoidal, and not symmetrical between phases, things get more complex. However providing the V and A connections are correct and the clamps do not saturate (a real possibility with triacs where peak currents can be 10X or even 100X higher than average, so that a clamp that looks Ok can in fact be saturating ) - the total power transferred to the load will be correctly calculated if all clamps are the correct way round. By altering the per phase power you can have something with one reveresed clamp that looks Ok when initially measured (even when checking per-phase loads) by under different conditions under-reads.
-
Display More
@IJ Fanboy
That is not true for the power calculation
The power is calculated on the PCE 830 by integrationg the instantenious power over the time period.
Instantenious power is calculated as i1*V1 + I2*V2 + I3*V3
Since V3 was not connected and thus I3 is zero this reduces to i1*V1 + I2*V2 .
Reversing a clamp, for example on I1 inverts the polarity of I1 and in that case the formula reduces to -i1*V1 + I2*V2 which is certainly not the same and will result in a different power reading.
My example was a hypothetical (I knew the I3 was zero in the test as stated in the test report). My point is that you can look at the values for each clamp and easily deduce when a sign is reversed.
QuoteThe PCE manual for that reason states : Make sure thecurrent flows from the front of the current probe to the back of it.
If the PCE 830 was insensitive to the direction, they would not have made such a statement.
Agreed. However, again, my point is by looking at the values for each clamp individually, it would be immediately obvious that a sign was flipped.
-
Indeed - which would make total power 1/3 measured of real.
No, there was zero current on the third clamp. And while a reversed clamp would alter the total power calculated by the PCE-830, the power for each individual clamp would be calculated correctly, just with a flipped sign for the reversed clamp. Do you mean to tell me that you don't think Levi checked the power for each clamp individually?
-
No, there was zero current on the third clamp. And while a reversed clamp would alter the total power calculated by the PCE-830, the power for each individual clamp would be calculated correctly, just with a flipped sign for the reversed clamp. Do you mean to tell me that you don't think Levi checked the power for each clamp individually?
A clamp measures current, not power. If the clamp is reversed, the instantaneous value of current is read as its opposite. This is why the plots in the appendix are alarming: I1 and I2 are in phase instead of being in antiphase.
The reading on the PCE830 display will normally show rms voltages and currents (which are by definition positive figures), and the total power (which is instead the algebraic sum of instantaneous powers V1*I1+V2*I2+V3*I3 averaged over the period). I attach below a sample image (credits to the GSVIT guys).
[ETA: second screenshot is with one clamp reversed.. note the power sum dropping]
IH Fanboy, I am not saying any of this is proof. But it deserves a reply with facts and not a dismissal.
Consider that a clamp may be reversed by mistake, but also tampered with (inverting wires within).
-
@Andreas.s
"A clamp measures current, not power."
Right, but each clamp's power can be determined:
V1*I1 = P1
V2*I2 = P2
V3*I3 = P3
Total power = P1 + P2 + P3
P3 was zero, because the current was zero. THH claims that if one clamp is reversed, you would have 1/3 measured of real power. This is wrong because there was zero current measured by the third clamp. So a reversed clamp on P3 would have no effect whatsoever. A reversed clamp on either P1 or P2 would affect the total power measurement, but by looking at the individual power measurements for P1 and P2, one could quickly discern that a sign was negative. I think it preposterous (or at least unlikely) that Levi would not have looked at the power reading associated with each wire.
-
Display More
Schaflander makes claims that technically don't make sense, and are too good to be true. He had apparently invented a solar cell in 1980 manufacturable for $0.27/W. That is 3X cheaper than the current cost, and 100s of times cheaper than the 1980 cost:
https://cleantechnica.com/2014…el-cost-trends-10-charts/
He also claimed some way to make fuel for cars out of hydrogen that could be used with minimal conversion. You can do this with methane, but not with hydrogen.
Instead of developing his technology - worth billions - He never disclosed his secret and dies with non-one able to replicate. He was convicted of fraud.
The case report is damning.
Now - whether the fraud conviction was fair or not I don't know, but I go by the duck test for these things. This one walked and quacked like a duck - it was probably a duck.
There is a whole media industry of conspiracy theorists - who look at these one-off stories of incredible inventions never independently tested and see suppression.
The overwhelmingly likely solution here, as with Papp, is an inventor with nothing, who either deliberately or because of delusion claims they have a miracle. The parallels with Rossi are strong so it does not surprise me that those who support Rossi find this guy also interesting.
I must make an exception to my abstinence from posting to correct some misconceptions written here by THH.
1. Schaflander never claimed to invent Galium Aluminum Arsenide solar cells, only to have used them and devised a way to manufacture them orders of magnitude cheaper than then current technology.
2. He was not an inventor and never claimed to be. He simply organized and funded a scientific team to accomplish a set of goals.
3. And yes you can do it with hydrogen, as has been demonstrated many times since.
4. He was not only trying but succeeding in developing his technology when the powers that be brought pressure to bear and closed him down. My own opinion derived from insider information via my wife's involvement was that when the oil company offer was rejected the US government was persuaded to step in and quash the technology on behalf of the oil company. His proprietary information was actually confiscated by the US government so it could only be further developed at their prerogative. In all fairness I don't believe this could occur in this manner in this modern era, what with the internet. Today it would need to be far more nuanced and subtle, but I have no doubt it could be orchestrated, and may well be in the case of the Rossi and the Ecat. I'm sure the government is not ignorant of APCO or astroturfing.
-
@IHFB
The individual phase powers (integral of Vj*Ij) are not shown by the PCE830.
The only way to notice is to look at current waveforms (and they weren't right so this should have been addressed) or vector display as in the pictures following (respectively correct and with I1 reversed)
Again: credits to GSVIT, Mario Massa in particular.
-
Energy values will not change, only power, but these should be instantly apparent as to what the problem is.
Embedded in the meter firmware should be
Power flow analysis including phaser diagrams, if a current transformer polarity is reversed, the voltage and current will show up in opposite quadrants.
As the load is primarily a heater there should be little if any reactive load, (power factor), so the current AND voltage should be physically close and in the same
It doesn't matter. The currents will vary based on the load. The PCE-830 will measure the proper power regardless. It will just flip the sign on a reversed clamp. That's it!
-
Energy values will not change, only power, but these should be instantly apparent as to what the problem is.
Embedded in the meter firmware should be
Power flow analysis including phaser diagrams, if a current transformer polarity is reversed, the voltage and current will show up in opposite quadrants.
As the load is primarily a heater there should be little if any reactive load, (power factor), so the current AND voltage should be physically close and in the same
Yes the load is a heater with negligible inductance, but the TRIAC control delays the turn-on of currents.
Nevertheless, the sequence in the vector diagram has to be the same : if it is V1-V2-V3 clockwise, it ought to be I1-I2-I3 clockwise. This could be checked for the Lugano test if a polar diagram were available.
In the TPR1 (black hotcat) where there is no I3 , it would be even easier: I1 and I2 must be in opposite quadrants. If they are overlapped it is proof of a reversed clamp.
Did anyone look at the PCE830 polar diagram in Ferrara or Lugano? I doubt. If they did, well: speak up!
-
andrea.s,
Permit me to revise my suggestion about what even a half brained person would do. Maybe you are right that the PCE-830 does not show the individual phase powers, although had I engineered the product, it would have. In any case, it would be simple enough to use a single clamp to individually measure the current (and therefore the power) on each wire. Just do it one at a time while the system is under full load. Look at the individual values. Do they look right? Are they all in positive territory? Is there no obvious negative sign before the power value? If so, add them up.
And since one of the wires had no current flow, it is pretty simple. A + B. About the simplest math there is to do. And thus, a person with a half of a brain could do this. You don't have to be a scientist or even an engineer to know or do this. You would want to know the current and power on each line. And you would check it. And then you would configure the measurement instrument with the multiple clamps, and double check it. And you would most likely switch the clamp back and forth, and check it again to make sure you had it oriented correctly.
Who wouldn't do any of this? Anybody would do this--all of it. THH's FUD is just that: FUD. And he is also wrong about the 1/3, and any implied connection with the COP of ~2. Because the third wire had zero current!
