On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> There is a wealth of information contained within the shape of the output > temperature curve associated with operation of the ECAT. > That's total speculative and nonsensical over-interpretation. It's based in the first place on the assumption that the power is constant during the "on" phase and zero in the "off" phase, but if that's what it is, why would Rossi have forbidden measurement of the actual wave to the ecat during the live run? He permitted measuring the power to the ecat during the blank run. Then they say it's the same, except for the turning off, but don't allow measurement. Again, why? He's told us what it is, but it can't be measured. The most obvious explanation is that he's concealing additional power input during the "off" cycle. The exact shape of the power cycle is completely unknown. If the particular details of the power input are proprietary, and it's not measured, you can't conclude anything from the output waveform, beyond that it has the same periodicity as the input power fluctuation. The "on" portion may not be flat, and the "off" may not be zero or flat. Otherwise, there would be no reason to disallow their measurement. Even if your assumptions of the input were correct, your interpretation of the inflection point is far too vague and unspecific to mean anything to me. Your spice model may give you all the results you want, but your descriptions of what's happening are far from clear.
