Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Corrected Conditioned Resistor Measurements

Expand Messages
  • carbonprobe
    My high voltage probe was not calibrated properly on my last 2 conditioned resistor reports to this news group. So I ve done a whole new set of experiments and
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 15, 2002
      My high voltage probe was not calibrated properly on my last 2
      conditioned resistor reports to this news group. So I've done a whole
      new set of experiments and replaced the plots on my web sight.
      Although the probe wasn't calibrated, the last 2 posts are correct in
      reporting the relationships between a linear and a non-linear
      resistor. The reason for posting this data in the past weeks is to
      show that in a conditioned resistor the only way to calculate power
      is by measuring Vrms and Irms, resistance never comes into the
      equation. In Shawn Bishops paper he calculates power from voltage and
      a falsly assumed resistance of 100K.

      To get those new plots go to:


      Here is the data for those plots:

      1.253M REGULAR RESISTOR (As measured by Ohm-meter)

      Vrms Irms (I*V) R (V/I)

      297 0.23mA .068W 1.29M
      636 0.5mA .318W 1.27M
      901 0.73mA .657W 1.23M
      1167 0.96mA 1.12W 1.22M

      V and I are in phase

      1.26M CONDITIONED RESISTOR (As measured by Ohm-meter)

      Power Res (with PF)
      Vrms Irms (I*V*.84) (V/I) (V*V/P)

      240 .35mA .07W .686M .817M
      552 .88mA .41W .626M .741M
      848 1.38mA .98W .616M .734M
      1149 1.87mA 1.8W .614M .733M
      1414 2.28mA 2.7W .620M .740M

      I and V are out of phase 32.8 degrees for a Power Factor of 0.84

      --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Shawn Bishop" <dragoneer58@h...> wrote:
      > Fantastic. Some data to do a test with.
      > Power = V_rms*I_rms = 1.455E-3 * 738.8 = 1.08 W, but also,
      > Power = V_rms^2/R = (738.8)^2/630E3 = 0.866 W (19% low), and also,
      > Power = R * I_rms^2 = (1.455E-3)^2 * 630E3 = 1.33 W (19% high)
      > So, what have we here? We have three mutually inconsistent power
      > results. But, wait. You say, "And if you calculate V/I you get
      > 507KOhms which seems in the ballpark given the ambiguities of high
      > voltage measurements."
      > Well, what's the percentage difference of your claim of 630K
      > to 507K?
      > % difference = 100 * (630 - 507)/ 630 = 19.5%

      Yes, a 19% error because my HV probe wasn't calibrated as I already

      > Let's do the test again with these numbers:
      > Power = V_rms*I_rms = 1.975E-3 * 668 = 1.319 W, also,
      > Power V_rms^2/R = (668)^2/630E3 = 0.708 W (54% low), and also,
      > Power = R * I_rms^2 = (1.955E-3)^2 * 630E3 = 2.457 W (54% high)
      > And again, the percent difference between what you think you have
      as a
      > resistance (630K) versus the 338K you measured is: 338/630 = 54%

      Here is where you are making a mistake. The resistance as measured on
      an ohm meter of that conditioned resistor is 630K. You are wrongly
      using this value to calculate the power across it. And since the
      resistance decreases as the voltage increases in a conditioned
      resistor, you cannot use 630K in your power measurement. You can only
      use I and V to calculate power.

      > > SO the conditioned resistor is sucking more current just like
      > > says.
      > Not the case at all. You made direct measurements of current

      Yes the conditioned resistor is sucking more energy compared with the
      regular resistor of the same static resistance, it's clear to see,
      just look at my measurements. Both have a 19% calibration error. And
      the calibration error doesn't effect the difference between the
      regular resistors measurement and the conditioned resistor's

      > the resistor (with your 68 Ohm shunt) and a direct measurement
      > the load resistor, took their ratios, and outright stated what the
      > measured resistances were (507 and 338 Kohm). Then you proceeded to
      > ignore this experimental measurement and instead went with what you
      > mistakenly assumed the load resistance to be (630K).

      you are using a falsely assumed 100K resistance to make your power
      measurements. And what is being used is a 100K conditioned resistor,
      meaning it was 100K before it was conditioned. If you measure a 100K
      conditioned resistor after it has been conditioned it reads about
      1.3Meg. You can't use 100K or 1.3Meg in the power calculation you can
      only measure power by measuring V and I. I am posting all my
      conditioned resistor experiments to explain this point.

      > And it's clear using the 3 various power equations that the ONLY way
      > all three can be reconciled is by realizing that the assumed value
      > the resistance is incorrect....

      EXACTLY, My point again. Now we are getting somewhere. The assumed
      value for the resistance that you are talking about is like your own
      assumption of the 100K resistor that you talk about in your paper,
      and there fore by your own reasoning it is incorrect. It's incorrect
      because it's a conditioned resistor.

      > You made a perfectly valid measurement of the load resistances in
      > of these two tests and then didn't use them. Why?
      > Shawn Bishop

      Because it's redundant, if you already know power from V and I, why
      calculate resistance from power to calculate power again, you just
      end up with the same exact value.

      --- In MEG_builders@y..., "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@y...> wrote:
      > --- In MEG_builders@y..., "carbonprobe" <carbonprobe@y...> wrote:
      > > And we know that this statement is untrue by the experimental
      > results
      > > I just posted. And you are still fixated on the falshood that
      > > is using a 100K resistor as a load
      > Naudin's "conditioned resistor" is, as you say, quite nonlinear. On
      > this we fully agree.

      Glad we agree on something

      > But if it's so nonlinear, how come his current waveforms are nice
      > clean sinusoids? I certainly wouldn't expect to see current that is
      > nicely proportional to applied voltage, would you?

      His current wave forms show some spikes, go to his site and examine
      the pictures again. Look at Megv3.0 - test run #3, his current is
      being shown on an analog scope and has spikes, Mine look the same.
      Also look at the spikes on Meg v3.0 test run #2, more spikes on
      current and mine look the same. The reason they are close to nice
      sine waves is because his Meg is at or close to resonance and the
      current is large, at lower currents the waveform tends to distort.
      The furthur away you get from resonance the more distorted the output
      waveforms look in the Meg. The waveforms that I am getting using my
      conditioned resistor are the same as Naudin's pictures of his setup
      using conditioned resistors. Nice clean Voltage sine wave and spiky
      current sinewave. Look at the MEG patent wave forms, mine look like
      those also.

      > The fact that the current waveform is sinusoidal and in phase with
      > voltage waveform proves that the load used in that test was an
      > ordinary resistor, not a "conditioned" resistor.

      It doesn't prove that it was an ordinary resistor. I've seen phase
      differences between V and I in my conditioned resistors from 0 to
      around 30 degrees, and this equates to only a small power factor

      > As for the supposed EM radiation, go read up on antenna theory and
      > you'll understand just how absurd that theory is. Face it, Naudin
      > pulled this "explanation" out of the air in pure desperation, trying
      > to explain away the obvious fact that his most reliable cross-check
      > output power told him in no uncertain terms that his measurements
      > wrong.
      > Phil

      Theories are just theories wrong or right, who cares. What matters is
      test results, don't concentrate on meaningless things. Why don't you
      build a MEG and prove that Naudin is wrong, I'd like to see that.
      If I were you I would do more research on Naudin's meg and other meg
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.