You miss (ok you avoid) a key point on all of your critics. Since Rossi wasn't allowed to forbid DC measurement with my home voltmeter, or removing insulator, or installing a connection box, on the fly, with classic wired ammeter/powermeter, since he was not allowed to forbid any reasonable test that would have found the fraud...
there is no point. Rossi was sure that heat measurement, voltage/current measurement would prove a good COP. maybe there was an error on electric measurement, on, thermal measurement, but Rossi had no control on it, and was confident enough to allow the test. If there is a fraud it is not on the electric power, nor on the temperature of the reactor... nor in something that can be measured (microwave, IR laser) or can be observed (hidden wires). Once Rossi allowed a test with fair access to the electric plug and to the exterior of the reactor, the story was written. E-cat was working for Rossi. It could be certain even if Essen was using a wood dummy voltmeter and a IR gun toy. Maybe Rossi is wrong, but sure it is not a fraud. This lack of intelligence in game theory is surprising for someone adult. It is quite common however among conspiracy theorists. 2013/6/21 John Milstone <john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com> > I'll summarize the multiple emails, since I certainly don't want to > "flood" the channel by responding to each email individually. > > Regarding the meter: Both the instruction manual and Mats Lewan (through > an email from the manufacturer) verifies that the meter DOES NOT measure DC > current. Therefore, the author's claim in the appendix that they > discounted the possibility of a DC "bias" based on the measurements of that > instrument is WRONG. Since they got that simple point wrong, I'm not > willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about their other > conclusions, especially regarding the electrical input to the E-Cat. > > Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a > bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But > there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the > ones who did the "surgery" to access those test points. We know that Rossi > provided the power cabling for the test (which, by itself, should have > raised a red flag for anyone who actually was looking for fraud). We know > that the authors described each separate wire as a "cable" in their > description, and that they describe looking for extra "cables" (NOT > conductors INSIDE of a "cable"). That's all we know from the report and > appendix. Everything else is unwarranted assumption. If the authors > really did perform the surgery to expose bare conductors and verify that > each "cable" contained only a single conductor, they should publicly state > that. Until they do, we have no reason to believe it. (Also, I would > point out that the creator of the "cheese" videos had no trouble testing > his power cord both for continuity and voltage without exposing his trick > wiring.) > > I see that as I was typing this, Rothwell has sent at least two more > messages my way. He seems to think I am so ignorant as to not realize that > one must measure voltage on a bare conductor. Actually, there are ways of > doing so, but I'm not suggesting that they were used in this case. Of > course, they had access to some point of contact with the conductor. The > question is exactly where, and who set up the bare wire. The report is > silent on that matter. Meanwhile, the second "cheese" video ( > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo) at 10:30 clearly shows that > it's entirely possible to measure voltage on a "rigged" power cord. > > I STILL haven't seen any credible argument that the wiring trick could not > have been used in this case. All we have is "argument by repeated > assertion" by Rothwell and others that it couldn't have possibly happened > because their assumptions about things never stated > > Meanwhile, if this simple trick was used, the results would very closely > match what the authors report. That should at least raise some eyebrows. > Is anyone in this group critical enough to realize that if the two > possibilities are: 1) Rossi has the most significant and world-shaking > discovery of the last century, or 2) Rossi had extra conductor in a > suspicious, "dead" wire, that we shouldn't even consider option 2? > > There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: > > It took place in Rossi's facilities. > > The power-in testing was performed on wiring provided by Rossi. > > The two lead testers (at least) have been on record since 2011 as Rossi > "believers" which risks > > According to Essen, it was only Rossi and Levi who decided what tests > would be allowed and what test equipment would be available. > > The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace which > contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, leaving no > way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. > > The power-in wires contained an "extra" conductor (the 3rd phase) line > that, if Rossi really was using 3-phase power should have shown current > flow. The wire was, allegedly, just sitting there doing nothing. > > Nothing in the report excludes the possibility of the wiring trick in that > 3rd "dead" wire. > > If the wiring trick was used in as simple a way as possible, it would > produce an apparent COP of 2.5; just what the authors claim to have > measured. > > The test was kept secret until long after it was concluded, making it > impossible for any criticisms or suggestions to be included. Rossi made it > impossible to "falsify" the report because we can't replicate it. (I know > Rossi claims that he will have more tests. It will be very interesting to > see if the testers really do work to eliminate these and other problems). >
