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

  • Correct.

  • Dr. Mike

    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…

  • Andreas Moraitis

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

    “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.

  • 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.

      • 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…

  • Freethinker

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

  • 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

    “Here you mixing potatoes with bananas”
    How original …

  • Freethinker


    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

    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

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

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Thomas Clarke

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • Omega Z

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

  • 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.

  • 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.