The PCE-830 power meter is AC only, 50/60 Hz. It would not measure any superimposed DC that might be injected via the control box.
Good point.
They had clamp ammeters as well. In the next test they should just bring a generator.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
[Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
Jed Rothwell Sun, 26 May 2013 14:21:02 -0700
A Swedish correspondent sent me this link:
http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&sid=5450c28dab532569dee72f88a43a56f0&start=330
This is a discussion in Swedish, which Google does a good job translating.
Before you translate it, you will see that in the middle of it is a message
from one of the authors, Torbjörn Hartman, in English. Here it is, with a
few typos corrected.
QUOTE:
Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on
three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three
phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used
and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the
power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that
also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and
I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there. The control box
had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out
were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was
only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little
socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with
the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood
of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal sheet under
the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or
elsewhere as I remember it). Of course, if the white little socket was
rigged inside and the metal screws was long enough to go just through the
wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead
current. I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables
connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of
the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size.
I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the powermeter and of
the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and
cables to the powermeter in case anyone would tamper with them when we
were out.
I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so
I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery.
The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much.
All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with
our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of”
and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of” and not
“proof of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over
the whole situation before we can talk about proof.
Best regards,
Torbjörn
END QUOTE
- Jed
[Vo]:Levi et al. did measure the DC component of input power
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
Jed Rothwell Tue, 28 May 2013 10:50:35 -0700
Alan Fletcher reported a correction by Levi et al. They did measure DC
after all. This might be lost in another thread, so I thought I would copy
it here to a new thread.
May 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM
> <
> http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html?showComment=1369733204626#c7691737630487135094
> >
>
>
> Earlier statement :
>
> Prof. Essén wrote this paragraph as a comment to this piece of interview
> that appeared on http://www.pureenergyblog.com/?p=1232 :
>
> ————————————————
> Interviewer: Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to
> exclude that also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp
> amperometers could not detect?
>
> Prof. Essén: No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal
> wall socket and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
> manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can check
> this in future tests.
> ——————————————————————
>
>
>
> [ cleaned up on another blog : ]
>
> “In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc
> (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I
> will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all
> coauthors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many
> more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude
> dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”
>
>
Alan’s comments:
> I suspect that there may be a revised version of the paper with an
> analysis of this.
>
> So we are left with :
>
> a) The input AND output measurements are valid
> b) It’s all a fraud by Rossi, Levi ....
>
> The latter, of course, is outside of science, and in the field of
> conspiracy theorists.
>
>