Features
• LENR-to-Market Digest -- April 9, 2014
• NRL Seawater to Fuel Program
• My Dad & the World’s Most Accurate Atomic Clock
• Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced | Interview | Taiwan
• Blacklight announces sustained production of enormous power
• This Week in Free Energy™: April 3 | March 28 | March 20
• YMNEE Fuel-Free Generator by ABK Capital Ltd.
• Mats Lewan book on the E-Cat story: An Impossible Invention
• Jeremiah Sturk to demo his magnet motor on Mt. Shasta
• Sterling's first H-Cat calorimetric test points to anomalous heat | Protocol



 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe

 

Directory
Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

Resources
• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

Mingling
• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

Shopping
• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact

 

 

 


http://pesn.com/2014/04/24/9602476_H-Cat_amp-meter_vindication/
You are here:
PureEnergySystems.com > News > April 24, 2014; completed April 26, 1:00 am MDT

H-Cat amp meter vindication

Comparing the Fluke meter to a DC clamp-on meter and an analogue meter, I show that the Fluke can indeed measure DC current accurately once calibrated, even though the display says: "AC"; and that its readout is slightly higher than the DC clamp-on meter, which pushes our efficiency even higher, to 79%, well above the 64% max classical science predicts for electrolysis and catalysis. [See correction; and see second story: Heat-Loss Accounting Improves the Efficiency Number in Sterling's First H-Cat Experiment]

SYNOPSIS: The Fluke 87 meter on the AC setting with the AC clamp-on probe is able to read DC current quite accurately -- very accurately when calibrated to an accurate DC meter -- the Tpi 275, in this case. Fluke sells a DC clamp for this Fluke meter, but the electrician I borrowed it from only has the AfC clamp, not needing the DC clamp. It is a happy fluke that this combination turned out to work, and can be just as accurate as the Tpi, once calibrated, which we do herein, giving us an extra two percent on our efficiency calculation. I am fully confident that the data we collected from our first test definitely concludes: "anomalous heat". No doubt about it, with an efficiency of 79% -- well above the 64% that conventional physics would say is the limit. Additional analysis about other heat losses in the system (report pending) will push that number even higher.

MEMO: This report was written initially, primarily on the evening of April 23, with the intent to publish it first thing on April 24. However, the YouTube processing time for the first video compilation is still under way, more than 54 hours (as of April 26, 1 am MDT) after I clicked "publish". The second attempt only took a few hours and is now up. Meanwhile, I did a work-around to get to the freeze frame screen shots found in the xls spreadsheet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Calibration test set-up by Sterling Allan. April 23, 2014.

By Sterling D. Allan  
Pure Energy Systems News


Great News! 


Background

You'll recall that we've been talking about the H-Cat, which involves running HHO (gas from electrolysis) across a catalytic converter (yes, the same as used in cars), producing copious amounts of heat -- probably because of an LENR (aka "cold fusion") reaction taking place due to the nano palladium, nano platinum, and other nano materials in the matrix -- classic ingredients of cold fusion systems. And apparently, this reaction takes place even at room temperature. 

So, last month, I set out to do a test to measure the input energy versus output heat to see if I could get some kind of validation that there is indeed anomalous heat showing up -- something that defies conventional scientific explanations. My experiment entailed submerging the catalytic converter in a water bath, measuring the before and after temperature of the water, and measuring the input electricity going to the HHO generator. 

Last month, in conclusion, I came up with a number of 77% efficient, comparing the input electricity joules to the output heat joules -- which is well above the 64% maximum that conventional science could account for (75% maximum efficiency of electrolysis, times 85% maximum efficiency of a fuel cell process [e.g. the catalytic reaction]), pointing to "anomalous heat" as the conclusion of going above the 64% max expected using conventional science.

However, the skeptics argued that my data was flawed and thus good for nothing but to be thrown out because the Fluke 87 V amp meter I was using to measure the current going into the HHO generator was indicating "AC" (alternating current) in its display, even though I was measuring DC (direct current). They said that my data was just an "artifact" and not reliable.

I argued in response that 1) the data I got was in the ballpark of what would be expected, given the liters/minute gas flow rate we measured, according to Steve D, the HHO generator manufacturer; and, actually, it was a little high on the input numbers (e.g. if our meter was reading 13 amps, the actual amps may have been closer to 12.3), meaning our results were even more favorable than the 77% number we calculated; 2) the data moved up and down as would be expected, given the experimental conditions. 

However, the skeptics remained unsatisfied. (No surprise there.)

See my extensive report.


New Development

Finally, yesterday, I was able to borrow that Fluke 87 V True RMS Multimeter again, that we used last month on our H-Cat calorimetry test. 


Click
image for enlargement

The electrician who owned the meter was being a stinker about letting me borrow it again. Being busy, he was hard to reach, and when I did reach him, he was dismissive, curt, and finally resorted to just telling me to go away. But I did not give up, even though I had images in my head of him calling the cops and getting a restraining order or something. 

Yesterday morning I composed a letter to tape to his door explaining why I was being so persistent; and I contacted his receptionist to plead my case; and I drove up to Fountain Green (30 minutes away) to get my dad's clamp-on amp meter so I'd have it ready to go. Finally, my persistence paid off and he called me back that afternoon and let me borrow it for a few hours to run a calibration test. I had it back to him less than three hours later.

As mentioned above, people were saying we'd have to throw our data out from that first test because the Fluke amp meter readout was saying "AC" even though we were measuring DC current. When I toggled the switch on the meter to DC, it read 0.01, which didn't make any sense, whereas the 10-apm to 14-amp range readings we were getting in the "AC" readout mode were within the range we were expecting. So I went with that setting and recorded the data accordingly.


Calibration Test

So yesterday, to calibrate this, I ran current to an old car battery that was at 12.44 Volts (so there was plenty of room for charging current), from a battery charger on several different settings to get a range of amperage output.


Click
image for enlargement

The charger had three switches:

  • 6 volt | 12 volt 
    [I used only 12-V]
  • Automatic Regular | Automatic Deep Cycle | Manual
    [I primarily used "manual". Automatic Regular wasn't constant output.]
  • 2 AMP | 10 AMP | Engine Start
    [I used all three]

The bottom row of the meter readout was amps, going up to 12, spanning maybe 1.25 inches, so the readings were +/- about 0.25; but they do give you a ball-park reality check.

I compared the Fluke to 1) my Dad's Tpi 275 Clampmeter E 188344 28DK (also a True RMS Multimeter), and to 2) the analogue meter on the battery charger. Per instructions from a call to tech support, I pressed the REL button to zero out the amp setting at the beginning, while no current was flowing (with no wire going through the clamp-on meter).


Click
image for enlargement

And I videotaped most of my measurements, so you can check the data for yourself.

The Fluke meter was set to the exact same settings as a month ago, according to video 6 of 8 I shot that day, at time stamp 47 seconds http://youtu.be/ahKLaPvxxsU?t=47s  

Here is a photo of the general set-up. 


Click
image for enlargement

The battery charger shown in this photo was mine, but it turned out to not give a constant output, but rather gave little surges every few seconds, which wouldn't really be practical for this test. So I went across to my neighbor's house and borrowed a battery charger from him, which had more options (shown further above). The red multimeter is what I used to measure the voltage, just as a point of interest. It's mostly irrelevant to this test, since the intent was to measure current going from the charger to the battery. 


Results

Here is a thumbnail sampling of my data:

 

(amps/current)

battery
Charger Setting Charger Fluke Tpi Volts
Manual / 10A 2.5  3.7 2.7 15.03
Manual / 2A 1 3.0 2.25 14.12
Manual / Engine Start 12 13.0 12.3 16.87
Auto deep cycle / 10A 1 0.25 0.11 --

DATA: Here's a link to the Spreadsheet with all the data I recorded by watching the video and doing freeze frames to get the exact amp readout number at a specific time. If two or three amp numbers are shown at the same time stamp, that means those meters were visible at the same freeze-frame, or within a fraction of a second (mostly [~90%] the former). Note that it was easier for me to get the resolution needed with the original footage. Some resolution is lost in the YouTube version, even though it's labeled "HD". I had to cover the window in my office with a black sheet in order to see my screen well enough to read the numbers. But at least you do have a copy of my data points so you can check my numbers to see that they are what the instruments read at those time stamps. Usually, what I did, was clicked on "play" until the next second changed, then I hit "pause", so most recordings (maybe 80%) were taken within the first 0.2-0.3 seconds of the second number changing. I don't know how exactly my raw data corresponds to the YouTube data in terms of fraction of a second line-up, because the xls formula I used only resolved to a second, so there may be sections where the timing needs to be adjusted accordingly, if you're going to try and repeat my screen-grab methodology. Your numbers should be pretty close even if you don't use the exact same freeze frames that I did. There were about 160 freeze frames in all. It took probably at least 8 hours to gather all that data and build the charts. I started at about noon April 25 and finished around midnight, with a meal and some potty breaks in between. And I'm kicking myself because I opted out of an event my family went to which turned out to be one of the best productions ever here in Ephraim Snow College (50 year Beatles commemoration), probably including talent from Julliard (which they partner with regularly), directed largely by my neighbors, the Merediths. Damn. I hope they put it up on YouTube or something. I really missed out.

Below is a screenshot of the first set of data I took from the synopsis portion of the video. You will see that it contains all the calibration information needed to convert the Fluke 87 meter readings from my test last month in the Data Set C (around 14.48 amps). The question is what kind of linear or other relationship there might be, which will enable us to properly calibrate the Fluke meter to come into alignment with the known-accurate Tpi meter.

 

Next is a chart over time showing the readings from the three different amp meters with the battery charger in the "Engine Start / Manual" setting. You can see that the amperage is not steady but drops, then begins to rise again. You can see that the Fluke meter tracks the Tpi meter readings, though slightly higher in amplitude. The analogue meter has a very low resolution (+/- 0.25). In this region, it has close agreement to the Tpi. 

 

Next is a plot of the data taken in the 13-14.5 Amp region from this synopsis video, showing (Fluke - Tpi)/Fluke in the y axis, with the Fluke amps being on the x axis. You can see that there is a definite linear relationship that can be used for calibration.

 

Next is a graph showing a comparison of the three meters with the battery charger on the "10-Amps / Manual" setting. In this case, the amperage holds fairly steady after dropping in the first three seconds. Note that nonetheless, when the Tpi does move, the Fluke moves as well. The battery charger analogue reading is very low/inaccurate in this region.

Next is a plot of the data taken in the 4 Amp region from this synopsis video, showing (Fluke - Tpi)/Fluke in the y axis, with the Fluke amps being on the x axis. Bear in mind the scale on this next chart. The x axis spans only 0.05 amps; and the y axis spans only 0.04. Whereas the x axis above spans 1.5 amps on the x axis, and .04 on the y (that is actually the same spread as below).

 

Next is a comparison of the three meter readings with the battery charger on the "2 Amps / Manual" setting.

 

Next is a plot of the data taken in the 3.15 - 3.45 Amp region from this synopsis video, showing (Fluke - Tpi)/Fluke in the y axis, with the Fluke amps being on the x axis. While this seems to follow a similar linear relationship as we've seen before, the slope of this one is very different, as you will see in a subsequent chart.

 

This next chart shows two sets of "linear" subset lines (around 3.25 amps and 3.75 amps) pointing nearly vertical, while the overall trend seems to be more gradual and in line with the 14-amp range. I don't understand what is going on here. This spurred me to take more data, so I collected freeze-frame data from what I labeled Videos E,F,G in my composition set. That data follows this.

 

This next chart includes the Video D-F data as well; and you can see that this helps define the overall linear relationship spanning from 3 amps to 14.5 amps. This is a plot of all the data taken showing (Fluke - Tpi)/Fluke in the y axis, with the Fluke amps being on the x axis.

 

It appears to me that the extrapolation line in the 13-14.5 amp region is not of the same slope as the extrapolation line in the 3-6 amp region, which this print-out scan of my markings shows.

Without more data in-between these two sets, from 5.5 to 13 amps, we can't say for sure that the extrapolation of the calibration line will be accurate in that region. If you look at the shape of the data points, they start narrow then spread out as you go from right to left. This may be a function of the anomaly that makes this fluke possible (of being able to read DC current fairly accurately on the "AC" setting on the Fluke meter with an AC clamp-on probe). I would guess that there is likely to be one or two other spreads like this between these two sets. And this will continue on the other size of zero as the amperage increases (so the Fluke would drop below the Tpi measurements above around 16.5 amps.

But we can say with a fair degree of certainty that the calibration line in the region of 13 to 14.5 amps will be very accurate. More about this below.

Next is the timeline of Videos D-F, running through the three main settings with the two other knobs on 12-Volts and "Manual". Note, again, that the Fluke (pink squares) tracks the Tpi meter (yellow triangles). It diminishes when the Tpi diminishes, and it increases when the Tpi increases. Note also that the Tpi is in fairly close agreement with the analogue amp meter (blue diamonds). Bear in mind that the analogue meter is not very accurate compared to the Tpi. But it is a "reality check".


Click
for enlargement

Our primary interest in this analysis is in converting the Data Set C (around 14.48 amps) from our first H-Cat test to the proper value. So here is all the data from the region of 13 to 14.5 amps that I collected in this comparison.

Now, adding an extrapolation line... (This could be done by a math formula so that all one would need to do is enter the Fluke 87 info and the calibration number would emerge.) 


Click
for enlargement

According to this line, the 14.48 amp data point corresponds to a conversion rate of 0.027, which comes to 0.39 amps, so the Tpi-calibrated number at that point will be 14.09 amps.

April 26, 5 pm MDT Update Memo: 
If I understand correctly, in the comments below, Samuel Derricutt points out that what the Fluke meter is measuring is going to be power-source dependent, and that it is picking up some kind of AC component from the power supply that corresponds to the magnitude of the current being supplied; and this data isn't going to just mirror over to the DC power supply we were using last month. However, I will point out in response that this data shows that the Fluke meter in AC setting with an AC meter can indeed measure DC current quite accurately, and with a calibration reference such as the Tpi, it can be very accurate. When you then add in that we had a point of calibration in last months test -- Steve D's Farraday algorithm that showed our readings were a little high, so the actual amp numbers were a bit lower than what the Fluke reported in this mode -- then you can see that we are justified in concluding that we got AT LEAST a 77% efficiency.


Steve D's Faraday Calibration

April 26, 2014, 5:15 pm MDT Update

I finally got Steve's numbers to plug into the data we got last month. He's the one who sold us the 31-plate HHO Generator we used. If I understand correctly, he has an algorithm based on Faraday's numbers (Michael Faraday was one of the pioneers of electrolysis) that he is able to enter what two pieces of data are available and show what the third piece is likely to be. The three pieces of information he has to work with are: 1) volts, 2) amps, 3) liters/minute of gas produced. 

On the day we ran our test, just minutes before we began the H-Cat test, we did a gas production rate test. We did that by taking a two liter bottle with a calibrated "2 L" level marked on the bottle, turning it up-side-down into a 5 gallon bucket of water, then running the HHO gas hose into the bottle and timing how long it took to get to the "2 L" mark.

The voltage was 10.73, the Fluke meter amp reading was 11.55 amps ["AC"], and we measured a rate of gas production of 0.87 L/minute. According to Steve's algorithm, based on 10.73 Volts and 870 ml/minute, he said: "I get 13.6a for 870 mills and 77% efficient."

So at that rate of production, at that voltage, when the Fluke meter displayed 11.55 amps, the Faraday-estimated current was 13.6 amps, a correction of 18%.

RAMIFICATIONS FOR CALIBRATION

With Samuel Derricutt's info that the reason the Fluke works on the "AC" setting with an AC probe is that it is picking up some kind of reading from the AC-powered DC-output power supply; and this is going to be different for each device. We can't take the calibration curve for the battery charger and use that to correct for the ham radio power supply we were using. That we were able to get a reading in the vicinity of what is reasonable shows that this same phenomenon was in play with the ham radio power supply. 

However, the info from Steve shows that the correction for the Fluke meter in that setting is UPWARD NOT DOWNWARD as I had incorrectly stated last month. That means that the efficiency number (minus the pending write-up from David Haack) is going to be LESS than 77% by quite a bit. 

Thought we took other flow rate tests earlier, we didn't have the Fluke meter yet, so we didn't have an amp reading for those tests, so we only have just the one data point mentioned above, in which we had the Fluke meter and took a flow rate test. So we don't have a way to do any kind of calibration about what direction the calibration line is pointed, and its approximate slope. The gap could be larger up at the Fluke "14.48 amps" readout region, or it could be smaller, and that is quite a distance from the "11.55 amps" readout region, as shown by the data collected last Wednesday.

CALIBRATED EFFICIENCY ESTIMATE

If we go with the 18% correction factor, then instead of 14.48 amps, we would have something closer to 17.09 amps as the input current. Running that through the equations instead of 14.48, the resulting efficiency becomes 

Set C: 
Data: From 9:31 pm to 12:00 am (149 minutes), with the average amps being 14.48 17.09 and volts being 10.68, and with a temperature rise of 5.5 °C from 30.0 to 35.5 °C.

14.48 17.09 amps x 10.68 volts x 149 minutes = 23000 27190 W-minutes
23000 27190 W-minutes x h/60m x kW / 1000 W = 0.384 0.45 kW-h
0.384 0.45 kW-h x 3600000 joules/kW-h = 1380000 1631000 joules input

5.5 °C x 46 L x 1000 ml/L = 253000 calories
253000 cal. x 4.18 joules/cal = 1060000 joules output

Output:Input efficiency: 77% 65%

Ouch.

That's just one percentage point above the 64% maximum efficiency that conventional science would predict for a system involving electrolysis and catalysis -- in the region of noise and possible other measurement errors. We don't know the correction value at "14.48 amps", whether it is smaller or larger than 18%.

I guess we're just going to have to repeat the experiment with better instrumentation (which we plan on doing; new power supply on its way which has the ability to dial in the A and V setting and hold them steady).

I will say that given the additional heat output numbers that we got from David Haack (report pending), the overall efficiency number will go up quite a bit -- enough that I'm still interested and inclined to think that we have anomalous heat.

Unaccounted Heat Loss Calories

- Water Basin (inadequate insulation): 57,117
- Steel Tub: 1,299.9 
- Half Brick: 1,146.8
- Water Lost to Steam (unknown): 0 to 46,922
_________________________________
Total Calories: 59,564 to 106,485
(Rounding to significant digits came in final step of tabulating the efficiency percentage.)

Here is the preliminary data he tabulated for Data Set C, which is where I initially got the 77% efficiency figure. Here is the correction adding in the low value he came up with. 

Set C: 
Data: From 9:31 pm to 12:00 am (149 minutes), with the average amps being 14.48 17.09 and volts being 10.68, and with a temperature rise of 5.5 °C from 30.0 to 35.5 °C.

14.48 17.09 amps x 10.68 volts x 149 minutes = 23000 27190 W-minutes
23000 27190 W-minutes x h/60m x kW / 1000 W = 0.384 0.45 kW-h
0.384 0.45 kW-h x 3600000 joules/kW-h = 1380000 1631000 joules input

5.5 °C x 46 L x 1000 ml/L = 253000 calories
Add in 59564 calories
253000 + 59564 cal. x 4.18 joules/cal = 1060000 1310000 joules output

Output:Input efficiency: 77% 80%

That's well out of the region of noise and instrument error -- well in excess of 64% max expected by traditional laws of physics.

On the evening of April 26, Steve sent me this xls file saying:

Here is the excel I use. The formula's are all there.

This is what we use to calculate MMW (milliliters per minute per watt) and % efficiency of our hho cells. This was made back in 2009 and is widely used by builders here on YouTube.


Discussion


NOTE: The above section brings up some points that makes the conclusions below different. I'm working on a revision.

You can see that 1) the magnitude of readings goes up and down as expected, 2) the magnitude is within the ballpark of the DC measured by the two other meters, 3) the Fluke, in the regions we are dealing with, is higher than the Tpi by a margin that is consistent with what Steve predicted (15-20% in the 11.5 amps region) based on the liters/minute rate we reported.

We now have three data sets that corroborate the Fluke meter's amp readings as being DC, even though the display said "AC" and being within 15-20% above the actual value.

  • Steve D.'s calculation of the expected amp rate given the liters/minute gas flow we measured at a certain voltage.
  • The Tpi 275 meter
  • The battery charger analogue meter

This shows that the 77% efficiency number I reported is believable, and is actually low, since it is based on the Fluke data, which reports higher than actual, by 0.39 amps at the Data Set C region of 14.48 amps. As shown exhaustively above, the Tpi-calibrated value at that point will be 14.09 amps.

So, redoing the math, with this number:

Set C: 
Data: From 9:31 pm to 12:00 am (149 minutes), with the average amps being 14.48 14.09 and volts being 10.68, and with a temperature rise of 5.5 °C from 30.0 to 35.5 °C.

14.48 14.09 amps x 10.68 volts x 149 minutes = 23000 22421 W-minutes
23000 22421 W-minutes x h/60m x kW / 1000 W = 0.384 0.37 kW-h
0.384 0.37 kW-h x 3600000 joules/kW-h = 1380000 1345000 joules input

5.5 °C x 46 L x 1000 ml/L = 253000 calories
253000 cal. x 4.18 joules/cal = 1060000 joules output

Output:Input efficiency: 77% 79%

So this calibration gave us two more percentage points in our efficiency.


Chat with Fluke Tech Support

On April 24, I was able to talk to Robin Mackenzie from Fluke about these results we got, both last month as well as on April 23 doing the calibration tests.

In looking at our photo, he said that the clamp we were using was designed to be "AC only". This is why the meter read essentially zero on the DC setting. The probe wasn't a DC probe. He was very surprised that we were able to get data that was anywhere near an accurate value.

In speculating why this might be the case, he said something to the effect (you'll have to excuse me because I didn't fully understand what he was saying, but was trying my best to write it down, so don't fault him if this explanation is inadequate): 

"The output of the probe is 1 mv/amp. There is a shunt inside the meter of a specific resistance value, so what you're doing is using ohms law, applying a voltage across resistance and getting current, and the meter is picking up that current value. The meter is expecting a current value, looking for a voltage crop across a shunt. 

"Doing this the backwards way, the meter is seeing the voltage drop equivalent, feeding it a voltage signal across the shunt, inducing some current. The combination of the two is creating a voltage drop that appears to be similar in value.

"Clearly, it's not working the way it's supposed to. I'm surprised its working at all. The meter is seeing something it's not expecting. I'm even more surprised you were able to get a similar value."

He agreed that it is a "fluke."

On April 25, 3:54 pm MDT, he wrote:

After a closer look at the picture, I was able to identify the current probe used in the test. It is a 80i-400 AC current probe. The output is 1mA per 1A of current measured. Even though you were able to get a correlating measurement with the 87 and the 80i-400 compared to the green clamp meter, any observer that is knowledgeable with current measurements will question your results. You will need to get the correct current probe that is able to measure DC amps (Fluke i410) for the 87 or just use the green clamp meter to make your measurements. Fluke would not be able to state that the measurement made with the 87 and the 80i-400 are valid for a DC Amp measurement. 

He hadn't seen my data set yet, showing the strong correlation between the data collected by the Fluke and the Tpi. I'm curious what he will think once he sees the finished report above.


Other Considerations


David Haack is preparing a report of some other corrections that need to be made, including;

  • Adding the caloric value of the water cool-down tendency since it wasn't perfectly insulated, per the cool-down data.
  • Adding the caloric value of the steel tub.
  • Adding the caloric value of the half brick.
  • Adding the heat emanating from the reservoir and from the HHO generator. While these aren't part of the H-Cat reaction, they are part of the "output" end of the equation, and should be added to the output calorie number.
  • Speculating about the caloric value of possible steam formation contributing to some of the loss of water collection at the end versus water input from the reservoir to the HHO generator.

Even without the amp-meter correction factor, his numbers put the corrected efficiency closer to the region of 100% efficient.

Remember, we only need to go above 64% efficiency to show "anomalous heat".


Conclusion

The bottom line is that I was able to show that the Fluke meter was indeed measuring DC current accurately, once the calibration correction is taken into consideration. Even though the display said "AC", as I surmised in my write-up last month, it was measuring DC. Its magnitude goes up and down as expected, and in the ranges expected.

So we've been vindicated. 

I am fully confident that the data we collected from our first test definitely concludes: "anomalous heat". No doubt about it.


Follow-up

Yes, I plan on repeating the test, as science requires it. The more duplications, the better. But we won't be doing it exactly as the first time, but will be seeking several improvements.

A new power supply capable of 50 amps at 15 volts DC running on 110 V AC is on its way from Hong Kong. (The power supply we were using is no longer functioning.)

We plan to measure the temperature at the exhaust point from the catalytic converter as a possible indication of steam formation. We plan to collect the exhaust gas, or to circulate it back in a closed loop.

We will also be keeping a record of the reservoir temperature.

# # #

What You Can Do

  1. See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy 
  2. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
  3. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
  4. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
  5. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology. 

See also

Resources at PESWiki.com

Page posted by Sterling D. Allan Jan. 29, 2011
Last updated May 03, 2014
 
 

Bestsellers

 

NOTE: We are presently moderating all comments, to keep out the crass negativity, flaming, and other inappropriate forms of criticism. We welcome constructive criticism tactfully stated. Frequent offenders will be blacklisted.

"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right."
-- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing • PowerPedia

PESN.com
Copyright © 2002-2014, PES Network Inc.