The Unlikelihood of Power Measurement Error (Omega Z)

This comment was first posted here by Omega Z

It should be known that those doing this test used four or five other instruments to periodically check voltage/amperage through out the test on various input output cables. This was done in order to be confident in the data acquisitions of the PCE 830’s. That they were functioning properly through out the test.. I find it highly unlikely, in fact ridiculous to think that the testers wouldn’t notice if something was awry.

That aside, Any comments on blogs aren’t going to have any impact on the E-cat. Development of it continues regardless what anyone has to say. Then there is the fact that Most of the skeptics haven’t yet grasped the fact that the E-cat technology no longer belongs to Rossi. Should they ever accept this fact, then all their arguments would fall on deaf ears.

The fact the E-cat is under new ownership & they continue to pump time, money & manpower into this says it works. The question comes back to how far can it be pushed as in high COP & how difficult is it to harness this energy for useful purposes.

Omega Z

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Let me see if I can finish the Qucs model first. It would be a better idea for the MFMP group to have an available model done in an open-sourced simulator so all could experiment with it. Feel free to pass the link from the spread sheets to anyone you want.

  • Obvious

    I think this would be easier than trying to “math it out” on paper, for most of us….

    We might Monte Carlo the math out here in the blog, eventually. Conspiracy folks might think this is the plan, complete with provocateurs to egg us on with group-organizing negative reinforcement…

    I have a feeling that once the three phase numbers are in, with good R guesses, the provisional V, I, R, W numbers for the real pulse width solution exists in a proportion of an area described by a set of those numbers. IE: the power per cycle (or half cycle) of the pulse width (or total of multiple pulses) is equal to the power per cycle of the three phase treatment.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I think it would be possible to model the configuration with a circuit simulator such as Qucs. Qucs is the open sourced “Quite Universal Circuit Simulator” and it could model the e-cat configuration using sinusoidal supplies, controlled switches and resistive loads. It might be possible for a novice to even understand the circuit. What I do not know is how the triac controller actually works — that is, what phase angle and triac firing sequence was used in the IT.

      I modeled a delta load with switches in series with the load resistors and looked at the current waveforms to convince myself that the measurements made were feasible. I have posted a spreadsheet of the model with plots for all to view here:

      https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0I7pqe_KM9tWTJmNUE4ZHVqMEE&usp=sharing

      What it shows is that with the simulated firing angles (set to 30 degrees) and a phase sequence that seems likely to have been used, the current pulses are twice as many in the lines as they are in the loads — implying that the measured result is feasible. It does not actually model what is likely the tested configuration (switches in series with the line), but it is a convincing argument for how it might be. Qucs would be a better simulation.

      • Obvious

        With a rotating C1 Line disconnect (only two phases active at a time, 3 times per full cycle). This does then mean that the C2 current is 1/2 of the C1 current for each conducting phase. Since for each pulse, the two series resistors experience 1/2 I, while the other one gets I current through one resistor.
        To simplify this paper model, I used a current of 3 A for C1.
        2 A flows through a single resistor, (which is in parallel with the other two, that are in themselves in series), and the two resistors in series have a current of 1 A. 3A therefore flows out the return C1 line, balancing the circuit..
        Yet the sum of the current flowing in a C2 line over three phases is 4/3 C1.
        Since each individual resistor experiences two “forward” pulses (1 A each time, using 3 A for C1) while in series with another resistor (for a sum of 2 A over three cycles), and one pulse as a single resistor (2 A), but in the “reverse” direction. The summed currents of the (equal) pulses is (1, 1, -2) = zero over three phases, so current is correctly conserved. The magnitude of the current over three phases is summed (1, 1, 2) = 4 for each C1 line over three phases.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I think you are confused by the “3” phases. In fact, from the viewpoint of a single phase, there are four current pulses. Two are “outgoing” and two are “incoming”. Let’s call the three Line phases L1, L2 and L3. Now, let’s measure the current in and out of line L2. Let’s also call the resistor loads between a phase pair R12 from L1 to L2, R23 from L2 to L3 and R13 from L1 to L3. Using your 3 amp line current example, from the view point of L2, over one complete cycle (20 milliseconds at 50 Hertz) we get:

          1). (L2 to L1) 3 amps leaves L2 and splits ONE amp through R23 in series with R13 AND 2 amps through R12. 3 amps enters L1.

          2). (L2 to L3) 3 amps leaves L2 and splits ONE amp through R12 in series with R13 AND 2 amps through R23. 3 amps enters L3.

          3) (L1 to L2) 3 amps leaves L1 and splits ONE amp through R23 in series with R13 AND 2 amps through R12. 3 amps enters L2.

          4). (L3 to L2) 3 amps leaves L3 and splits ONE amp through R12 in series with R13 AND 2 amps through R23. 3 amps enters L2.

          Adding up the pulses, we see L2 “sends” 2, 3 amp pulses for 6 amp pulses and “receives” 2, 3 amp pulses for 6 amp pulses over one complete cycle. During the cycle, resistor R12 has 1, 2 amp pulse from L2 to L1 and 1, 1 amp pulse from L2 to L1 to L3 (also passing through R13) for a total of 3 amp pulses from L2 over the cycle. At a different time, it has 3 amp pulses to L2 over the cycle.

          Current is 3 amp pulses trough R12 and R23 while L2 carries 6 amp pulses. Thus the cable “connections” C2, C1, C1 to L2 have 6A, 3A, 3A respectively.

          NOTE: The current pulses are actually portions of a sinusoid. They will all have the same shape, but a different amplitude. What matters is the fact that there are twice as many current pulses through L2 as R12 or R13.

          • Obvious

            Thanks again Thomas K for your continued constructive and useful input.

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            interesting idea, and quite probable.

            the problem is that the testers talk of I=I2=I3/2…

            if rms current is used this will be false (1 and 2 have to be synchronous)
            if average absolute value is used it works.

            I bet on your interpretation, assuming some misuse of the term “average current” in the report, which is thus the real “average of rectified current” and not the “average of RMS value”

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Triac controllers are complex. If complexity bores you, you are not up to analyzing the problem. I find it interesting that people who do not understand the complexity keep falling back to the “Three-Phase Theory says” argument.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    What “DC Argument” did the authors use? The property of an RMS (Root-Mean-Squared) AC measurement is that it creates the same level of power in a resistive load as a DC signal of the same numeric value. They did measure the resistive value of the leads and use that resistance to estimate the power dissipation of the leads. No “DC argument” here — just Ohm’s Law. Ohm’s Law works for resistive loads for both DC and RMS AC.

    For small phase angles, a triac controller simply has two of the three phases connected at any time. Under those conditions, you will measure a ratio of 2-to-1 for line current to phase current. The square root of three law only applies when all three phases are sinusoids, not pulsed sinusoidal segments.

  • Omega Z

    Thank you for offering me your Opinion.
    But no thanks.
    I already have one.

  • Freethinker

    I single you out as I read your comments here. And you are a pathological skeptic, you just hide it better than most. Shame on me? Well, now …

    Do they have to check for lasers in the ceiling as well? Microwave emitters in the floor? Embedded heating element in the construct that he reactor is resting on? Why not some radioactive element in the end caps?

    Maybe they will answer you if they “misplaced” the clamps for both instruments on the same phase when starting up the active reactor in a future communication. Until then its a ridiculous notion, and conjecture.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    I don’t understand your point.
    of course the measurement is RMS (Ieff as I say, maybe it is a gallicism)

    but RMS only add-up when synchronous.

    if you add 2 RMS currents where one wire is 0 while the other is not (cas if you have pulse on one side, then on the other) the sum is q quadratic average (typically sqrt(2) if currents are equal).

    it wan be more complex is there is overlap.
    but having I3rms=I1rms+I2rms means the waveforms are all the same.

    now maybe the I3=I1+I2 is too approximative…

  • Freethinker

    I do mind, as I am willfully trying to be anonymous.

    This is not an academic pissing contest, or “if you show your, I show you mine” measuring.

    Again, he is wrong as he does not understand that the current running in the one active line will not care what he thinks the instrument is showing, it will split in two. Further, he is incapable of understanding the concept of a black box test, but has to indulge in meaningless speculation on thing that deals with unknown nuclear processes going on in the reactor, very likely to directly affecting the current, as compared with the dummy setup, making the comparison useless.

    If he at that moment wish to pull down his pants and show the size of his formal intellect, then he is free to do that. I will not play that game.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Thanks for that. I missed it. You are right, the peak currents are very high. We have another way to check this. The waveforms show the triac duty cycle during a test (the dummy test?) at about 10% – I’d need to go back to it to measure accurately. Just supposing 10%,and reckoning that the “on” time is when voltages are at least 75% of maximum, We get at least 19kW. Maybe the triacs ar switching at a very low voltage. Or maybe the box has a three phase transformer before the triacs.as donderson above suggests.

  • Thomas Clarke

    I’ve never thought there are 100s of fraudulent scientists working on LENR. I generally have a good opinion of scientists, even ones chasing improbable dreams. So if that quote is from me I would have to have had a brainstorm. Delete the word fraudulent and I could have written it. I suppose I could have been echoing a previous poster with that word, and explaining why it need not apply.

    For questionable results let me give you Hagelstein’s MIT work as a typical, but high profile, example. The claimed high COP depends on calorimetry using filaments in bulbs. I refer you to MFMP (a shining example of good experimental practice – live science keeps them honest) for the experimental problems with such a setup. You might start by noting that the thermal resistance of the system, and hence the wire temperature, depends on all of radiation, convection, and conduction, and the surface from which these things happen is not controlled.

    Now – back to the issue at hand – because I always find that when you have valid criticism replying precisely to arguments is more fruitful than questioning the motivation of the arguer.

    (1) We have no knowledge of whether or not the testers bothered to cross check mains input power against box output power for the active tests. We know they did a lot of such checks on the dummy system, and then assumed (they say) that this validated their methodology and equipment. Therefore it is entirely possible they did not check. Also note that they never checked their currents against powers – pretty basic!

    In case (1) it requires one misplaced clamp. Probably by Rossi since he was responsible for the device removal and replacement. I should point out that random connection of clamps will lead to such mis-placement 2 times out of 3.

    (2) Now suppose that they DID check both power readings. In that case, yes, It would require two clamps misplaced, and much more difficult to imagine an innocent explanation, although I tend not to make assumptions that limit the ways things can go wrong, so i bet there are innocent explanations we cannot think of. In the case of deliberate tampering it could obviously have been done by Rossi and there is no reason to think the testers would have detected it.

    • Freethinker

      A lot of suppose and probably in there ….

      Thomas Clarke, you have nothing but your own conjectures to show for. You are down to the criminal intents, and gullible scientists like all other pathological skeptics.

      The clamps were not misplaced. You are conjecturing that Rossi for some reason were responsible for resetting the test setup after he applied the fuel for the reactor, and that this could not be detected..

      There are two important things:

      1. The power was measured correctly and there was no misplaced clamp, as is confirmed by the dummy COP of 1, the added data of the second PCE-830, and the overall sanity of the testers, as this is on of two primary observables.

      2. The temperature, being the proxy of the output power, is adequately measured.

      This give at hand the ECAT, from a black box perspective, works, and that the claims made in the report, more or less are valid.

      I understand the emotions if this goes contrary what you are willing to accept, but attacking peoples honesty and competence based on conjecture like you do will not solve the problem.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Freethinker

        I must disagree with your point 1 completely, and 2 partially.

        1. The dummy test was measured correctly. However any change from dummy to real could chnage things.

        We KNOW there is some chnage from dummy to real, either in the heater resistance (thought by most to be very unlikley) or in some aspect of the measurement.

        You cannot truthfuly deny that.

        Therefore you cannot truthfully claim that the real test must have been measured correctly.

        2. The temperature measurement is indirect and relies on a property of Al2o3 – emissivity, and another property – opacity. Neither have been measured nor accurately predicted for the specific al2o3 used at high temperatures (and therefore higher frequency light). How large an error this makes is debatable,but the test at much lower temperatures does not answer these questions at higher temperatures.

        I am attacking no-one’s honesty. I am stating that the testers did not check certain things they now will most certainly wish they did. That is a fact, and it is relevant to speculation about whether they would so carefully have checked other things that errors like a misplaced clamp are impossible.

    • psi2u2

      Just out of curiosity, since you did not answer the first question, why did you say that if you now think that “I’ve never thought there are 100s of fraudulent scientists working on LENR?” Since you did not deny saying this, I assume you did.

      It is difficult to reconcile this fact, assuming it is a fact, with what you now write.

      It sounds to me like you were not being truthful then, or you are not being truthful now. I don’t see how you can reconcile any other conclusion in your own mind. If you didn’t “think” that but said it, it raises serious questions about your credibility. One does not even have to get into the technical issues to see that this is a problem.

  • Mark Szl

    How about putting up a easy to understand but accurate circuit diagram of the test. Then it will be easier to see things and one can always look up concepts as people post about various aspects.

    • Thomas Clarke

      The report has a perfectly good circuit diagram. There is not much to say, just 3 resistors in a delta network driven from a triac-switched 3 phase supply.

  • ivanc

    by Andrea Rossi today

    To the Readers:

    I report a communication released today from Industrial Heat:

    “Recently we become aware of information being distributed offering
    ownership,shares or prepurchase agreements for Energy Catalyzers (E-Cat)
    with request of money in the following Territories: North America,
    Central America, South America, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and
    Emirates. As the lawful holders of the E-Cat rights and Intellectual
    Property in the above specified Territories, we want to clearly state
    that no such agreements are being offered to the public. If you receive a
    solicitation, we strongly encourage the public not to respond, provide
    personal information, or commit any resources.

    John T.Vaughn, Vice President

    Industrial Heat”

    ——–

    Does this sound to owners to you, or a licensee claimming in his territory?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Even static magnetic fields can influence the resistance, see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoresistance

  • Frechette

    The control box does not chop! It conducts line current for a given interval of the 50 Hz sine wave by triggering the triac using phase control. There is no chopping going on here. Get your technical terms correct.

  • Freethinker

    …. or it is set to ground when the triac is closed b y the control box… making it work like they say it does.

  • Freethinker

    “And I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering.”

    😀 Good for you. You state it like it mattered and like I in no way may have a far more extensive relevant academic background than you to understand the report.

    It doesn’t matter what you studied. You are still wrong.

  • Freethinker

    You need to check the facts, mr police.

    It does not make it more so if you repeat it. You get that if you measure RMS of a 3 phase AC. This is not applicable here.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Do we know the heater resistance? We know the wire resistance, yes.

  • donderson

    If readers are really up to looking at the specs of the PCE 830, please note (1) that the instrument measures currents flowing through three lines in TRMS (True Root Mean Square) and likewise the voltage of each of the three lines. (2) To measure a voltage as it varies in time, there MUST be a reference voltage (set to be zero) established by the instrument. Then, with knowledge of three time-varying currents and three time-varying voltages for the three output lines, all are recorded and instant-by-instant POWER readings can be calculated and averaged over a sampling interval to yield an absolute average ENERGY. I suggest that the control box may even provide internally three transformers to face into the very low impedance (mostly resistive) of the e-cat. Do NOT try to use three-phase sinusoidal theory or even worse, DC, for the output of a black box controller.

    • ivanc

      Again, if you do not want to use 3phase, why you use a 3phase power meter, using RMS.
      You contradicting yourself. and Yes, you have to use 3 phase theory. because is a 3phase setup

  • Ophelia Rump

    The measurements are what they are. If they do not square with your expectations then your expectations are not in accord with reality. This is science.

    Maybe you have insufficient information, maybe you missed something, or maybe you are just incorrect, it is even possible that you are in unconventional territory. The instruments do not lie. If you believe they do, then do not attempt to fly by them or you will surely crash and burn.

    • Thomas Clarke

      Ophelia. I’ve never said the instruments lie. just that one of them (the one used) most likely has one clamp mis-oriented by Rossi when he connected the reactor again after the dummy test.

      Instruments do not (unless broken) lie. But people can make mistakes using them.

      i don’t understand what you mean by expectations. Electrical theory is about physics, not expectations. And in this case the only expectation is that as stated in the Report the heater element is Inconel. Actually it could be pretty well anything.

      The measurements are what they are, and they lead me where they lead. It seems to me that you have preconceptions and when the measurements leads you away from them you question the correctness of this logic.

      • Freethinker

        Well Thomas, you have already shown your color before, so it is no surprise how you manage to express your opinion as though it was almost a fact that Rossi in any way did invert one of the clamps, like he was some sort of criminal. You have zero input to build that accusation on, except your own faulty interpretation of the data at hand.

        Have you had a chance to look at those clamps? I mean those that goes with the instrument? Have you read the PCE-830 manual, or do you have factual experience?

        Really, the testers must be certified idiots to not have noticed that. And that is from the actual setup. You know, by looking at them clamps themselves. They must have been even more moronic to fail to see that something was wrong in their data as Rossi left the building. Ohhh… I see, they were ALL in on it …. Well yes. It make sense then.

        No, Thomas Clarke, the clamp was not inverted.

        • Thomas Clarke

          Reversing a clamp is not the only way the power could have been misread to explain the anomaly. It is the most likely given the evidence we now have, I think it is most helpful to suspend any question of motives when analysing scientific data. Feelings can run high and that prevents clear analysis.

          As for whether the testers would have detected it what you forget is that their data was inconsistent. the anomaly between currents and voltages is pretty basic. They say themselves the active current is 40-50A (and indeed the Joule heating calculations confirm), the dummy current 19A. those two numbers, together, do not fit the difference in powers they claim for the two cases.

          Given they did not cross-check their own figures it is surely plausible that they did not notice other things less obvious than this, like a mis-orinted clamp. They are not, too my knowledge, three phase power specialists. Nor, again to my knowledge, have they ever done three phase power measurements themselves. I’m willing to be corrected here – I’d dearly like to know which of the testers is responsible for validating the electrical setup.

          Giancarlo on Mats Lewan’s thread has posted some pictures of a PCE-830 measuring with reversed and normal clams., It is not obvious, from either the power measurement screen or the reversed clamps, that in fcat the clamps are reversed. Somone proficient in three phase analyser measurements would realise, but not somone with standard electrical background knowledge but no experience of using the instruments.

          Those interested in the background to this should look there where there is much discussion.

          • Freethinker

            Thomas Clarke,

            It is very important to spread light on motives, as you are repeatedly pointing at the “misplaced” clamp – be it by gross incompetence of criminal intent – as being key in claiming the COP is 1 and not > 3. Your line of arguing is same as pathological skeptics, that has come to the end of the road, and has nothing more left than accuse the team of gullibility, negligence, incompetence, or right out fraud. With no evidence but your own confabulated conjectures. What I wonder is what drive you, what is your real agenda?

            Giancarlo’s very good document – I applaud him for presenting this as it give a clarity for us who do not have access to a PCE-830 – does not apply to the setup of the test. But it does serve as a reminder how OBVIOUS a “misplaced” clamp would be. The same clarity can be had by reviewing the manual of the PCE-830.

            See, you can conjecture and guess all you want, because you do not know the nature of the control box, if anything added or modified, the software in the micro controller, the setup of the same, etc etc. If all clamps are right and the power in can be trusted as measured, and the temperature likewise, then the claims of the report stand, more or less.

  • Freethinker

    Yes, he has made an excellent exercise in a 3 phase example. It is not applicable.

  • Freethinker

    Well, the control box still give you that 0V, because if it would not, it would be a closed loop of three impedances in a delta and only a single point potential, and then no current would flow. As obviously a fair amount of AMPs are flowing, there is a potential and a sink capable of handling that current.

  • Freethinker

    ronzonni,

    Of course the reactor itself is the same, what is meant is that there is two completely different situations when heating the dummy without the fuels, at some power levels, and computing the joule heating and then after having loaded the reactor with the fuel and restarted, computing the joule heating again at some other power levels.

    In the dummy situation you have simply the inconel coil heating an empty space, while in the active reactor you have unknown nuclear processes as well as much higher currents operating. As we do not understand what is going on in the reactor, and also hat it is in fact outside the scope of validating the COP, the whole discussion is moot.

  • Freethinker

    😀
    “Here you mixing potatoes with bananas”
    How original …

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Unfortunately, at the moment we have only these shreds of information. You are right, Rossi should have warned the testers about magnetic fields – imagine what could happen if somebody who wears a wrist-watch would approach the hot reactor. The authors have been asked about magnetism at LENR Forum, we can only hope to see an answer in the near future.

  • Freethinker

    ivan, you should check out the concept “inductance”.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    simply you assume it is 3 phase.

    it is not 3 phase, it is only 1 phase split in 2.

    if I1eff+i2eff=I3eff then this mean I1, I2 have same waveform…

    not sqrt(3) or sqrt(2)… just basic single phase computation…

    Earlier I imagined it was a V setup, but it can even be a Y or delta as with 2 synchronous phase, Y delta or V are the same from outside

    this is why assuming when you don’t have enough data is best to be wrong.
    I can even be wrong because i may have missed another detail.

    moreover you don’t know if the resistance does not change drastically, if the impedance does not change, if the length of the pulse does not change impedance, if harmonics does not increase drastically, as does phase shift…

    al you can be sure is that a wattmeter does it job, and if there is an awry error happens people will detect it if they are in curious mode…

    an error is also to use a result out of it’s goal.
    the losses of the cable were estimated to be compared with main power and show negligible.

    • AlbertNN

      It is not single phase, as they do not use a neutral return conductor. This is what makes the analysis a little complicated, and also what makes it hard to check the readings of the power meter with hand instruments.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        yes and no.
        what i mean is that from the effective current measurement it seems that it is not 3 rotating phase, but 3 synchrionous phase…

        the most strage is that as you say the seems to beuil mostly synchronous phases, with 3 switched phase… I don’t see how, but if the current add-up it is that they are synchronous.

        it is not classical, even switched 3-phase.
        basically forget about sqrt(3) and alike…

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Look at slide 5 of this presentation by Yeong E. Kim and John Hadjichristos:

    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf

    “After each triggering duty cycle , the magnetic field (at ~20 cm from the reactor) rose from ~0.6 Tesla to 1.6 Tesla during the reaction period (no triggering !)”

    “This indicates that LENRs are producing very strong electric fields E (and currents I) and very strong magnetic fields B=1.6 Tesla !“

    There are several possible explanations why such strong magnetic fields would change the (real or apparent) resistance of the coils significantly. It would expect in no case that the resistances remain constant, provided that there are similar conditions in Rossi’s reactor.

  • Dr. Mike

    ivanc,
    You are correct, the current to each heater wire is the line current divided by SQRT3. (Guess I didn’t retain much from my course on 3-phase power from over 40 years ago.) The authors claimed to have cross checked the currents with supplemental ammeters. One could assume that they checked the line currents, but did not check the currents going to each heater wire or they would have caught this error.
    Dr. Mike

    • Freethinker

      Unless of course there was no error…

  • DickeFix

    Well, it obviously HAVE been electrical measurement errors since the stated figures are conflicting with each other. Either the input power value during active test is wrong or the stated currents during both dummy and active tests are wrong:

    1. The Joule heating (power losses in cables) calculated from the current increases almost 6 times between dummy run and active run (from 6.7W to 40W) whereas the stated input power increases less than 2 times (486W to around 900W). The two powers ought to be almost proportional which would give an input power around 2900W. This leads to COP less than 1 instead of 3.2-3.6

    2. In the dummy run they measure an “average” (I assume they mean RMS) current of 19.7A per phase and a measured power of 486W. During active run they claim 40-50A current and 800-900W total input power. Since the current is 2-2.5 times as large and P=R*I^2 one would expect 4-6 times input power in active run, i.e, around 2000-3000W. This leads to COP around 1 instead of 3.2-3.6.

    3. I also wonder why the RMS values of the current are so large if they use line voltage. In Giancarlos PCE 830 test the current was 5.7A at an input power of 2.477 kW, almost an order
    of magnitude less. How could the difference be so large?

    To have the E-Cat work with stated COP above 3 one needs to assume that the current values are wrongly measured while the measured power values are correct. Maybe they measured the average of the peak current in the three phases instead of RMS current? In that case the Joule heating calculation is completely wrong and there maybe, maybe is still a chance that the E-Cat works despite the other mysteries (LENR, ash and fuel analyses, no gamma etc.)

    • Freethinker

      Well, DickeFix

      1. You cannot compare the dummy Joule heating with the Joule heating for the active reactor. You have no idea what is going on in the reactor that would change the impedance of the Inconel wire coils.

      2. Again you assume the same impedance for the lnconel coils in the dummy as for the active reactor. It’s apple and bananas.

      The apparent diff is a proxy value of the COP if anything. Anyway, it is outside the scope of the test to worry to much about what goes on in the reacor. The joule heating contribute very little. The two most critical observables are the temperature and the in power. Both are adequately measured and accounted for.

      3. Do you know what the control box does? You are talking about power bursts, one line at the time, coming AFTER the control box. Comparing with Giancarlos PCE-830 test in this way is not evidence for wrong doing. Also note that an order of magnitude is 10* and not 3.5*.

      • Dr. Mike

        Freethinker,
        If the resistance of the Inconel wires dropped by a factor of a little more than three for the active reactor, the authors need to explain how this happened. Their theory for the 3X drop in the Inconel wire resistance also must explain why the wire resistance did not drop further when the operating temperature was increased from 1260C to 1400C. Perhaps there is an explanation for this resistance drop, but the dramatic change in heating wire resistance is certainly worthy of a discussion in the report.
        Dr. Mike

        • Freethinker

          No, Mike, you are wrong, they need not.

          The test is a black box test. There are two primary observables, the power in and the power out. The power out is proxied by the radiative temperature of the reactor shell as measured in the wavelength interval 6.5-13 microns. If you can state that you are confident that those two observables has been measured adequately, then that is all that is needed to draw the conclusions on how much energy is produced as what is put in.

          That the authors perhaps should comment on the heating wire resistance in the report is something else, but as far as evaluating the ECAT as a black box it is not needed.

          The whimsical attack on the power measurements, that originated from the by now well known photo of the PCE-830 lack substance as most critics venturing to attack it seem unable to grasp the fact that the power from the control box is not a 3 phased AC current, but a product of the control box. As the dummy has been evaluated and clearly showed to have a COP lower but close to 1, it stands to reason that there is no inverted clamps. Even such a claim is preposterous, as it would be detected by the team

          If one still feel compelled to venture outside the scope of the test, and discuss the joule heating current data, you still end up in matters concerning the reactor and you will simply not get an answer on that until Andrea Rossi is good and ready.

          So then to turn it around:

          So if you feel confident that the input power and the temperature has been measured adequately, would you say the claims put forth in the conclusion about the COP of the reactor has merit, more or less? Does it matter how the impedance of the reactor behaves to make that conclusion?

  • Freethinker

    Think you need to go back and redo.

    • AlbertNN

      If only two out of three phases are connected to the mains by the switch box at one time, then I2 is not equal to I/2. This is basic electrical engineering.

      • Freethinker

        Then you need to check the schematics again.

        • AlbertNN

          There are three resistors in a delta, or ring, configuration connected between the phases. In the case of that only two phases are active, the current can flow through two different paths. One consisting of one resistor, with the resistance R. The other one consisting of two resistors in series, with a total resistance of 2R. These two paths will not conduct the same current, which is easily shown by Ohms law.

          • Freethinker

            There are no 2 phases active at the same time. Only one line at the time.

          • Obvious

            The effective resistance of the three resistors, with two in series and one parallel with those two, is then 2/3 R for equal resistor loads.

    • Dr. Mike

      Freethinker,
      A 3 phase power controller does not chop up the power making only one line active at a time. It supplies 3 phases of the voltage that are at 0 deg, 120 deg, and 240 deg relative phase angles. This phase difference is what makes the currents going to each heater wire equal to the line current divided by SQRT(3), rather than divided by 2.
      Dr. Mike

      • Freethinker

        From the TPR2 report:

        “The E-Cat’s control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W”

        Do note the micro controller. Can you vouch for its software?

        Then check the infamous photo in the report of the PCE-180. It has peaks, and between them there is 0V. At a given time one line will be pumping current, and the others, by virtue of being 0V will drive no current between them. Now check the schematics, and you will see that the current will be split by 2, for the time where that line is active. The I on the line will be split in 2, I/2, as the other lines have 0V.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          note that if the current is split in two branch over time with no overlap, then the effective current in the common branch will not be the sum of efficient current but the square root of the sum of square, here square root of 2 times each current if they are equals…

          if the numbers adds classically it is that the current are synchronous.

          the measurement are not exact, but this mean that the current are more or less synchronous between the two branch.

          another possibility is that the claim i1eff+i2eff=i3eff is approximative

        • fact police

          Any periodic wave, no matter how it’s chopped, is the sum of harmonic waves (the frequencies of which are shown in the right part of the screen). The power determination is based on this, and harmonic waves follow the I/root(3) rule in a delta circuit, and so the sum of harmonic waves does as well.

          • Freethinker

            Yes, the sum of all discrete frequencies constitute the complete signal, and no it does not follow automatically that the PCE-830 is not able to measure the apparent power (which is V*I ignoring phase S1 – S3). PCE-830 is fully capable to deliver that information, all sampled with 0.5 Hz.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Correct.