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.

  • Correct.

  • ivanc

    After reading the critics to the report, I am reviewing the report myself, and I found this error:
    page 14, section 4.3
    “Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an
    average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 =
    9.85 A. The evaluation of heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
    WC1 = 3(R1I12) = 3(4.375 ∙ 10–3 ∙ (19.7)2) = 5.1 [W]
    (9)
    For the second circuit we have:
    WC2 = 6(R2I22) = 6(2.811 ∙ 10–3 ∙ (9.85)2) = 1.6 [W]

    The picture is 3 wires to feed the system (19.7 amps)
    each of this wires are connected to two wires to form the delta connecting the resistors in three Phase.

    They assume wrongly that the current in the delta will be I/2 of the line.
    But electric theory of three phase currents:

    http://www.academia.edu/643668

    says I line = I Phase * sqrroot(3) —this is for delta connection, the reason is the difference of phase.
    so IPhase= ILine/1.73
    and not
    IPhase=ILine/2

    This
    is a gross error and show complete ignorance of Three Phase electricity
    on the part of the testers, and they are university
    professors.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have read posts of Rossi defending the I/2 position. He also knows very little about three Phase electricity, and is using DC principles instead. You can not use DC Kirchoff law to 3phase alternate current!. You need to do an instantaneous analysis using the angle of phase and then converting it to its absolute value to find the effective current (see the link).
    But this error is great it give us light into the minds of the testers and Rossi, Now we know how much the testers and Rossi know about electrical theory and measurements in 3phase electricity. “I rest my case”

    • Freethinker

      Think you need to go back and redo.

      Before using superlatives in excess, like “gross errors” and “complete ignorance”, you should be very clear with the facts. The resistors are fed AFTER the control box. The control box chop up the 3 phase power and have one line active at the time. That mean that in every branch you have one current at C1, lets call it I, being split up in two equal parts I2=I/2.

      But please. Rest your case.

      • DickeFix

        No it can never be I/2 since two lines has to be active at any given instance for current to flow and the currents are out of phase. See H-G Branzell analysis:

        http://lenr.fysik.org/eCat/COP=1_or_3.pdf

        • Freethinker

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

      • ivanc

        Ja ja ja, where you have studied electricity?????
        The control box chops but still a bunch of harmonics and they measuring RMS NOT DC. so your argument do not stand, and also show your personal complete ignorance of electricity, this is why you defend what you do not understand. you are mixing DC with 3phase. how the chopping of the wave happens? in the positive and negative of the cycle? only the positive, only the negative, at what angle? even chopped any wave is a sum of harmonics of sin waves at diff frequencies, otherwise why they will connect in delta 3phase.?????
        More if your argument is correct, why they used a 3phase power meter, with volt and amp reader obviously RMS as is reading 3phase. Your argument is out of all logic.
        Here you mixing potatoes with bananas

        • Freethinker

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

        • 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.

      • Thomas Clarke

        That is not true, because you must have multiple lines active at the same time to have power out! It turns out that there is no way to get the factor of 1/2, though the argument is a little more complicated, because you can nevr have all three pairs of currents equal. An AC power guy would know this from experience.

      • 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.

          • ivanc

            no my friend, in your idea you must have 2 lines active and one line open at a given time otherwise there will be no current flow at all.
            Then you in DC mode, and then i will split in two resistors in parallel one of value R the other value 2R, so currents never equal.

          • AlbertNN

            To what potential is the other two connected? There is no ground in the circuit with the E-cat, only three controlled phases.

          • 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 resistors.

      • 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.

          • AlbertNN

            The photo shows the current waveform, and not the voltage. And when a TRIAC is not conducting, it is an open circuit, and not a path to ground (0V).

          • 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.

          • AlbertNN

            That’s why the current is only flowing when two of the phases or connected by the “TRIAC”s.

          • 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.

          • AlbertNN

            Where do they state that it works like this?

          • 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.

          • fact police

            The total power is the sum of the power from each harmonic, and each harmonic follows the I/root(3) rule. So the rms current, relevant to the power determination follows the rule as well.

          • 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.

    • 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…

    • 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…

          • AlbertNN

            Are you stating that they only use one phase and switch it to the three leads going to the reactor? Why is then the switch box powered by a three-phase cable?

      • ivanc

        So what the watt meter is reading? voltage and current and change of phase in RMS
        The 19.7 amps are RMS this is why is used int the P=R I^2 expression. now the inductance adds to the resistance not the contrary..
        Keep insisting in I/2 is silly, I have explained they measured RMS because any wave is composed for harmonics of sin waves in other words sin waves superposed, this is why is possible to use RMS meters, otherwise we can not measure any thing, and have to use the oscilloscope wave form and integrate.

        If we follow your theory the report will be complete rubbish, because they use RMS meters when they should be using DC meters.

        • 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…

  • 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*.

      • DickeFix

        1. By what physical mechanism could the fuel in the reactor change the resistance of the heating coil. If one starts to assume that anything may happen when LENR is occuring, there is no idea to analyze anything. Hmmm…maybe the high energy concentration E-Cat bend space-time when it is active and the electric measurements changes due to a relativistic slowdown of the time. Or maybe LENR creates a gigantic time-varying magnetic field that induces currents in the heating coil. No, we can´t defend one miracle with another miracle. Then it is more probable that retired professors in nuclear physics make mistakes when it comes to electrical measurements.

        2. It is impossible that a gram of Ni in the reactor should change the impedance significantly (unless you assume giant slowly varying electro-magnetic fields when LENR is occuring). The temperature effect on the resistance of the Inconel wire is also negligible.

        3. No, the control box can not have only one line active at the time since there must be a return path for the current. I don´t claim the high currents to be an indication that COP is wrong, just that it seems strange to me how you can have so high RMS currents at ordinary three phase line voltage if you are using just a few kW.

        It is nothing wrong to be a free-thinker but you need to put some realistic constraints on your fantasies. Otherwise you are a free-dreamer and your thoughts has nothing to do with reality.

        • 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.

          • ronzonni

            Yes, but nobody seems to have confirmed these incredible magnetic fields. Should they not have done something to iron objects in the lab? Shouldn’t Lewan have observed this? Shouldn’t Defkalion have shown Lewan how they measured it?

            Maybe the claim to very high magnetic fields by Defkalion was in error.

            Has anyone claimed such extremely high (MRI machine level) fields for Rossi’s hot cat? If so, where is that information? (thanks)

            If high magnetic fields distort the resistance of Rossi’s reactor heater, shouldn’t the scientists who conducted the dummy run be made aware of it? As I asked Freethinker above, is the dummy run useful if it is not identical to the power run except for the absence of a fuel component?

            BTW, where is Defkalion these days? I know they have been said to be regrouping before bringing out a whole new generation of Hyperions. But instead, they seem to be closing offices and labs and disappearing entirely from the world wide web! Has anyone actually heard from Xanthoulis or Hadjichristos recently to confirm what they are busy with?

          • 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.

          • DickeFix

            Sorry, but I don´t believe that they get 1.6Tesla at 20 cm distance from reactor. If it was real it would have been discovered long ago since such strong fields affect keys and everything. Maybe they made a mistakes with units and meant mTesla. They also do not say if it was a static or time-varying field but from what they state it sounds static. Then it will not affect the impedance anyway.

            I don´t have confidence in Dekalion, especially not after this message by Stremmenos:
            http://www.lenrnews.eu/christos-stremmenos-say-defkalion-theater/

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Even static magnetic fields can influence the resistance, see:

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

      • ronzonni

        That confuses me. Are you saying that the dummy is not the same as the working reactor? If so, why run it? The whole point of the dummy is to confirm that the measuring instruments for power, input and output, are doing their job as expected, is it not? The dummy can only accomplish that if it is identical to the reactor and run over the same temperature range, no?

        If impedance of the reactor coils was an issue, why not measure it also?

        If calibration of the thermal camera might have been off, why not measure and report the temperature of the reactor surface with a thermocouple? Was this done?

        • 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.

          In edit: Sorry missed that on temperature. There was a K-probe (or a more thermally capable probe) attached to the control box for feedback. This is part of the black box, and that data will likely not be available. As far as putting a thermo coupler on the surface there was some problem with that to make it stick due to the surface structure. The thermal imaging concept may have some small quirks but on the whole it holds its ground.

      • 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?

      • ivanc

        Why the impedance in the dummy and active reactors will be different? The impedance is aproperty of the configuration, frequency, ferromagnetic configuration, none of this changed. so the impedance is the same (or quasi the same) the resistence may have changed a bit due the heat. 10% maybe

    • ivanc

      Your analysis is correct, with the data given is possible to calculate the resistance of the resistors in ohms, we have the power(486/3watts) in the dummy test, and the current 19.7/1.73. per resistor This value has to be constant or quasi constant give 10 to 20% variance. is a passive industrial material. so the power has to follow to p=R (I^2)*3 (there is 3 resistors), Current is easily calculated will be 50/1.73. and we could use R calculated from the dummy test. I also conclude the given data is incoherent.
      Lets freethinker do the calculations so he could practice and learn some electricity.

      • Freethinker

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

        • ivanc

          Yes, Freethinker, and in alternate current, elements have inductance, capacitance and resistance, and is called impedance.
          But in this case the inductance and capacitance is small.
          Inductance is a function of the frequency, also a function of the ferromagnetic configuration of the material, in this case we are talking about a small length of wire, it has some loops as any electrical resistance in a heater, normally in this configuration the resistance is very large compared with the inductance.
          The dummy and active runs must have used same frequency, is not reported otherwise.
          More, and please listen carefully, the inductance opposes the change in currents so it acts like a different kind of resistance, and does not diminishes the resistance but adds to it, causing the current to be smaller, not bigger.
          So if you saying the current is bigger because the inductance makes no logic e it should be the contrary the current is smaller because the inductance.
          The presence of a inductance does not diminishes the resistance it adds to it.
          To all this people talking about I/2 and wave forms, they are measuring RMS and the I/1.73 applies to RMS.
          Stop your fantasies get a book on electrical circuits and kill the ignorance. This is why Reports are Written so people who understand the field will validate or criticizes, is how science separates right out or wrong.
          You want the ecat to be real, me too, but I will not close my eyes and say something is right when is clearly wrong. And I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering.

          • 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.

          • Mark Szl

            Thanks Freethinker. Btw if u do not mind, what is ur relevant acedemic background?

          • 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.

          • ivanc

            You mean you have faith I am wrong

    • andrea.s

      Yes another mystery is the “average” currents.

      One should think they mean rms (average is zero hopefully, since they checked for DC).

      But by simulating the circuit the numbers they claim correspond rather to peak currents during the pulses. Of course it would then be plain wrong to compute dissipation as R*I^2 !

      I asked these questions (among others) on LENR-forum, but after a timid reply by Bo Hoistad to a couple of easy questions, the authors withdrew the answers and said they need more time (“The Working Group is not able to give us the answers right away).

      • ivanc

        It likely mean they averaged multiple RMS readings

      • DickeFix

        Andrea.S,

        I want to thank you both for your comment and your important contribution to the post-analysis of the test. It is really strange that the research team still hasn´t replied to these questions that should be easy to check by going back to the raw data. It indicates that the questions are important and they don´t want to reply until they are 100% sure about the correct answer and the consequences it implies for the conclusion of the test(s). I hope they realize that it is better for their credibility to admit an error than to stay silent forever. They were brave to participate in this controversial test and I really hope they will not be professionally ridiculed regardless of outcome. It is just strange that they didn´t get professional help with the electrical measurements and the experimental design. They could for instance done the following

        1. Dummy test at 900 W input power
        2. Active test at 900 W input power

        If temperature was higher in 2 than 1 they could continue with

        3. Dummy test where the input power was regulated to get the same thermal image as in 2

        It would then be easy to just compare input power (and square of current) in case 3 with case 1 to get the COP without critical assumptions about convection and emissivity.

  • Thomas Clarke

    @DickieFix

    Just to clarify I think by average they mean average RMS. That is fair enough, in AC power measurements RMS is usually assumed, though it is less precise than one would like.

    And the difference in power is due to low duty cycle from triacs which reduces the RMS voltage.

    Although it is sqrt(integral(V(t)*I(t))dt)) that matters here so much of that is taken into account. But not all.

    The only way of squaring the Joule heating figures, which seem Ok and are consistent also with the current they claim, with the power, would be for the heating coil not be to Inconel but instead some semiconductor with highly temperature dependent resistivity. Yet with constant resistivity between 1250C and 1400C. Not impossible, just highly unlikely and not what the testers said.

    • DickeFix

      Thomas, I agree with you. Dr. Mike responded in a similar way to my question about the high currents and pointed out the low impedance of the heating coils, 1.24 Ohms. I take the liberty to repost my reply:

      I understand that the regulator will regulate the voltage and current by changing phase and duty cycle. However, the high current and low impedance imply that the controller works close to its regulating limits.

      The maximum power would be at full duty cycle Pmax=3*Urms^2/R=3*400^2/1.25 =384kW. Of course it is just a theoretical value since the system is not designed for these kind of powers. However, this implies that the regulators working point in the E-cat (around 1kW input power) is less than 1% of its maximum. It makes me question if the low impedance load is really within the specification of the regulator and the power meter.

      Moreover if RMS current is 40A and duty cycle small, the peak current must be several times higher. At these exteme currents I would also expect quite a large voltage drop in
      the power outlet.

      • Thomas Clarke

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

        • DickeFix

          During dummy run the measured power was 486W and the RMS current in each lead of the C1 circuit was 19.7A. P=R*I^2 gives an “effective” resistance of R=1.25 Ohm. The actual resistance of the heating coil is in fact even smaller according to H.G. Branzells calculations:
          Rh=3/2*0.7661=1.15 Ohm

          • 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.

            Further evidence – I was always surprised at the quite high power dissipation of the control box. With very high peak currents that makes sense because the triacs will drop a volt or so.

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 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

    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

    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.

  • 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.

          • Thomas Clarke

            You are quite off the point. You are attributing motives to a misplaced clamp. Shame on you for such speculation. I am merely saying that it looks the most likely solution to the anomalies in this test. The Testers have the data to check this and answer yes or no. I am awaiting this.

            For example, if as you say they checked there was no misplaced clamp they could say so. Or, better, they could check the stored data from the PCE-830 which would confirm or deny the hypothesis absolutely.

            These “conjectures” are shared by most posters on Mats’ thread – so I’m not sure why you single me out.

          • 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.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Over this one matter – the power/current anomaly and what to make of it, my opinions are in no way what even this site would call pathological skeptic.

            Yes, any tester worth his salt would check carefully that his equipment setup was correct, especially after equipment had been removed and replaced.

            I’m not 100% sold on the mis-placed clamp. There are other ways in which power can be misread. But it needs some change between dummy and real. Often in these matters the true solution is never thought of – perhaps there are ways in which current can be misread. But the evidence posted (by others) on Mats’ thread is pretty convincing.

            If the testers don’t clarify this matter it is because they cannot, and the tests are worthless. I am fully expecting that they will, and await the clarification with great interest.

      • Mark E Kitiman

        Thomas, I may be wrong… but the skeptical argument requires that the clamps are ‘mis-oriented’ on both PCE’s, and that the named employee of Industrial Heat reversed the clamps.

        Are you the same Thomas Clarke that posted this:

        Ok – for the 100s of fraudulent scientists working on LENR. If you look
        carefully at the results you will see 99% of them – and all that have
        been replicated – are experimentally questionable.

        Please expand on your statement :

        ‘100s of fraudulent scientists working on LENR’

        Can you provide a list?

        • 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.

          • Thomas Clarke

            I thought I was expanding on the statement as you asked. I don’t remember saying it, and categorically could never have meant it. You have not given a reference so I cannot say whether I really said it but if so, because it reads contrary to what I think, it could only be a mistake (of an unusual sort) or replying to a statement in which someone else hypothesised 100s of fraudulent LENR scientists. In that latter case you will see that in fact it is arguing against the proposition that they are in fact fraudulent.

            I hope this expansion on and expansion answers your question?

            If you reckon my inability to remember this, without context, raises questions as to my credibility that is your prerogative. I can assure you that I have never had any intention when posting but to be truthful. That however does not mean that evrything I post will be correct, we can all make mistakes. I will apologise if I make one and become aware of it. (In fact I’ve done that on thsi thread already).

            My suggestion to you, which of course you are free to ignore, would be that you would be safer to work out facts and ignore credibility, whether mine or Rossi’s, as something to be determined from facts, not prejudice, or innuendo, or an attempt to judge character.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        This is a lot of assumptions on your part. Why don’t you simply put together a three-phase resistive delta load, rent the meters, and triac controller they used and “prove” they are wrong. Reverse a meter lead and see what you get. Measure the line and phase currents and “prove” they cannot be related 2-to-1. If you are correct, you will be easily able to prove it. Publish a report, and then all of us can poke holes in your measurement techniques.

        • 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 within an area or volume described by a set of those provisional solutions. 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.

          • Mark E Kitiman

            Very persuasive, can I ask that you re-post this on the replication thread, I am sure that the MFMP group would find it helpful.

          • 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

            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 resistor (therefore a C2 line) over three phases is then 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 A for each resistor over three phases, so current is correctly conserved. The magnitude of the current over three phases is summed (1, 1, 2) = 4 A for each resistor 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.

          • 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”

    • ivanc

      The methodology does not match with 3phase electricity theory.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        The measurements are of pulsed currents and with small triac firing angles they are entirely consistent. It is not 3phase electricity, but rather pulse waveforms that are a fraction of sinusoidal waveforms.

  • 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

  • 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. Of course, the sum of the three currents flowing out of the control box at each time instant will be zero. 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. Apparently the final result is calculated and recorded every two seconds. 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.

    • Thomas Clarke

      That is correct, no-one however is doing that (except the report authors, who used a DC argument for the currents). The sqrt(1/3) issue between C1 and C2 currents holds for any system, regardless of waveform, it can’t be 1/2.

      The control box could use transformers. But I’m not sure that is necessary. Also those who know the Fusion triac box seem to think not. EDIT – see below – there does seem to be good evidence for a three phase transformer.

      The measurement anomaly relies only on KVL, KCL, and ohms law. It does not depend on waveform shape or any other assumptions.

      • 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.

        • Mark Szl

          Yes you have said this before and it makes sense to me BUT why do people like Thomas Clarke not notice??? Here is another one of your posts and it like all the rest point this out:

          “The measurements are of pulsed currents and with small triac firing
          angles they are entirely consistent. It is not 3phase electricity, but
          rather pulse waveforms that are a fraction of sinusoidal waveforms.”

          Seems like every time the sinusoid-assumption-argument comes up, the pulsed small angle remark has to happen to keep the phases in balance.

          Starting to get boring.

          • 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.

          • Mark Szl

            Do not know if i am not up to it because i have not heard it. I am sure many others would like to read about it so they do not get misdirected by bad criticism. You would be doing a good service by enlughting many.

    • 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

      • DickeFix

        Hi ivanc, I guess that donderson distinguishes between sinusoidal three phase curent and pulsed three phase current. I understand your argument that one can always make a Fourier expansion of the pulsed voltage and the current and that the dissipated power in frequency domain is the total dissipated power of all harmonics in frequency domain. However, when calculating the power dissipation for each individual harmonic I am not convinced that the sqrt(1/3) factor applies.

        The angle between the phases is really a time delay of 1/(3*50Hz). For instance, the third harmonic, the angle between the phases will be 360 degrees instead of 120 degrees. Then the current becomes zero and no power is dissipated. This you can see in Fig. 5 in the report where harmonic 3, and 9 and 15 are missing (together with even harmonics which shouldn´t exist since the load is balanced). For 5th harmonic the phase difference between the phases is 5*120=240+(360) degrees. Hence there will be power when phase 1 and phase 2 (or phase 2 and phase 3) are activated. However, since the phase difference between phase 1 and 3 is 3*240=2*360 they will be in phase so there will be no current when 1 and 3 are activated. This makes it difficult to calculate the spectral content of the current pulses and do the power dissipation calculation in frequency domain.

  • Thomas Clarke

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

  • Thomas Clarke

    @Omega Z

    > 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.

    My skeptical arguments have nothing to do with Rossi’s business interests or lack thereof. Though I’d be cautious about thinking we know what they are!

    The argument comes from the fact that every single Rossi test has had severe flaws, all different, This means none prove his thing works. Also, it is strange since the flaws are all fairly easily closed that Rossi never does this, if his thing works.

    This latest independent (half independent) test appears to have revealed that his lastest hot-cat has a COP of 1.

    • 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?

    • Omega Z

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • ivanc

      How I add a picture in this forum?

    • 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.