U of Bologna, U of Upsala, and Elforsk never officially endorsed the ecat or stated AS AN ORGANIZATION or even as a university department that it worked.
That is because universities and departments of universities themselves don't make such proclamations. Scientists working for universities, departments of universities, or other institutions such as national labs, are the ones researching and reporting in published papers.
People say that is what the lawsuit documents reveal.
No they don't.
Quote
I have not read many of them so I don't know.
And it shows.
Besides shooting a stream of water across the turbine, I think a drill with a magnet on a dowel could do it, too. One the water meter values are tricked out, any purported kWh could be faked.
Well, based on the configuration and photographs, we know a stream of water wasn't shot across a turbine. So you really think swirling a magnet next to the flow meter will magically cause some digits to flip, to exactly what you want no less? These conjectures just keep getting more and more unbelievable. Again, disappointed with you Para. Your past analysis have at least been rooted in data.
Good catch, now that I've seen it I remember. Ok so there it is, very clear on a single screenshot and easier than a polar plot. So all we need is one of the Ferrara and Lugano testers to post a screenshot from each actual test. I have been asking for this since a few years. I received a private reply from Rossi, mostly based on arguments ad autoritatem, but nothing from the authors. Levi dismissed this idea on the blogs, which is understandable, but there are other five or six people who were there to review the work as peers.
I had a vague memory of seeing that same LCD display back when this test was originally put through the ringer as well, which is why I went back to dig it up.
To believe THH's power FUD, one would also have to believe the following:
1) That Levi and the five or six peer reviewers were a bunch of bumbling idiots
2) That nobody would think to check the power associated with each input wire to the system, perhaps the most important measurements to take in such a test. It's not like this is a hard task. This is easy. Much easier than measuring the output.
3) That nobody understands what a negative sign '-' is
4) That nobody noticed the error on the PCE-830 that would be displayed if one of the clamps was reversed
Prize for the most heroic number of assumptions on this page goes to... IHFB
You assume that the magic black box pushed the same power through the magic reversed clamp phase during the control and the active tests. The point of this system is that it is easy to make it tell you what you want it to - and still spoof it!
For crying out loud THH (advanced apologies for the Jedism, but finally we have an instance where it fits). It was you who made assumptions, not me. You assumed that a single reversed clamp would result in a 1/3 reading of real power, and therefore suspiciously match the ~2 COP. How did you get to that 1/3 number? Would you like to explain your reasoning? (If not, I would be happy to provide the likely reasoning and assumption behind it.)
It appears that the PCE-830 does show the power on each channel:
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!
@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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
@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.
"Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W."
p.16
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf
Is that what you are referring to? What specific concern do you have?
Display MoreYes I did, but the power was measured on the 3 phase input. (unless I got that wrong).
EDIT:
Yes, the power was measured on 3 phases:
As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter (PCE-830) was
continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the
control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed
I take the quote to mean that the control box was excluded from the measurement. What do you mean by "the power was measured on 3 phases"?
@IHS
The excerpts we have of Penon testifying under oath refer to the incremental reports and the final report fairly frequently. He is being questioned by both attorneys as if he is the author of the reports. I don't think that is even a contention at issue between the parties. Presumably, IH will have emails and reports from Penon, which would have been handed over to Rossi's team, and vice versa.
You will notice my post that got you hot and bothered . . .
Maybe hot, but not bothered. 
That is a valid concern. I see no engineer stamp on it, or a signature.
Para, I'm disappointed in you. You've been grasping for the past 2-3 pages. It is uncharacteristic of you, and doesn't bolster my confidence in your abilities (which I think overall are quite good).
