Show us how that cable will neglect the results. This is just more noise to
clog up the system.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
The cable is what connects the control box to the device. It appears from the
report that they did not examine it for anomalies. So, are the researchers
free to replace it with one of their own, or not?
The March dummy calibration run, according to the report, involved placing
voltage probes across the device while the control box was switched on in
non-pulsed mode. So your statement that "At no point did they measure output
from the controller" contradicts that. Please clarify.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote:
Look, all I know is what I read. I called out Motl for BS about the
emissivity, and you immediately agreed with me. That's a purely logical
analysis.
As for everything else - I can only process to arrive at a separate
conclusion when what I read is conflicting.
Then you have not read the document carefully. The constraints were spelled
out clearly. There are no conflicting reports.
"They were not allowed to measure the power from the control box to the
reactor"
The story as I receive it continues to change.
You should read the paper and stop "receiving" the "story" from random people
on the Internet. The paper makes it 100% clear what they were and were not
allowed to do. It is simple.
In all versions they weren't allowed to look inside the control box or to
view and/or analyze the powder. There's one version where they weren't
allowed to measure anything on the output side of the control box, except
for a constant power dummy run; but never when pulsed mode was switched on.
At no point did they measure output from the controller. There are no
"versions" here. There is one paper. Read it!
Doing a power measurement there is the least analytical thing you can do.
It is the one and only task they were assigned.
Obviously finer detail is available, so by inference they couldn't do that
either.
No, not "inference." By your opinion. Not theirs, and not mine.
So it seems that any future test will not allow any instrumentation of any
kind on the lines between the control box and the device.
As far as I know, that is the case.
And we're back where we started.
If you are not satisfied with this method, that is your opinion. They and I
do not share that opinion.
Tell us, if you'd be so kind, since you have the ear of the horse's mouth,
whether the researchers were allowed, and/or would be allowed in the
future, to break apart and examine the cable between the control box and the
device?
Why would they be? That would reveal trade secrets and IP not yet patented.
Of course this cannot be allowed. Rossi would be crazy to allow this.
Or to supply their own cable?
Which cable? The power cable? Obviously they had access to the bare wires, or
they could not have measured voltage. If you do not trust ammeters and
voltmeters, I do not see why a different cable would satisfy you.
- Jed
