Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

Here's what Motl says about it:

The emissivity is set to one i.e. they assume the "reactor" to be a black
body. This choice is labeled "conservative". Except that the truth seems to
be going exactly in the opposite direction. The actual emissivity is lower
than one and it's the coefficient multiplying the fourth power of the
absolute temperature to get the power. Because they seem to calculate the
power from the measured temperature (the infrared camera is claimed to give
the right temperature and automatically adjust the observed radiation for
emissivity etc.; see page 7 of the paper), the actual power is actually
much lower than [the calculated figure] 1609 watts. The emissivity of
metals
at
similar reasonable temperatures seems to be 0.2 or so – something of this
order – which reduces 1609 watts to something like 300 watts, pretty much
equal to the consumption.

Obviously, despite the fact that he cites page 7 of the paper, he didn't
read it since it describes how low emissivity setting for the camera
software overestimates the temperature.  Hell, even Joshua Cude understood
that this is a wash in the bandwidth of the camera's physical sensor.
 What's wrong with Motl?

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> I believe Lubos Motl proposed somewhere that the E-Cat HT surface is not
>> well-approximated by a blackbody and that the true emissivity is likely to
>> be T^(4+d), where 0 < d < 1; i.e., that in the worst case scenario there
>> will be ~T^5 relationship between temperature and power rather than T^4.  I
>> do not know what to make of this (assuming I have accurately reproduced the
>> details).
>>
>
> That it was Lubos Motl was unintentional speculation on my part, drawing
> upon a comment by someone else in the comments to the recent Register
> article [1].  The person who wanted to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
> was HolyFreakinGhost.  Elsewhere there is speculation (from the real Motl)
> that the "emissivity of metals" is 0.2 or something on that order [2].  It
> seems pretty clear that the E-Cat HT was well painted with black paint; I
> do not see how this detail could have been a point of confusion.  However,
> if Motl's value of ~0.2 were used for the emissivity, he estimates that the
> calculated power would be approximately equal to the input power.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1]
> http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/#c_1833878
> [2]
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

I believe Lubos Motl proposed somewhere that the E-Cat HT surface is not
> well-approximated by a blackbody and that the true emissivity is likely to
> be T^(4+d), where 0 < d < 1; i.e., that in the worst case scenario there
> will be ~T^5 relationship between temperature and power rather than T^4.  I
> do not know what to make of this (assuming I have accurately reproduced the
> details).
>

That it was Lubos Motl was unintentional speculation on my part, drawing
upon a comment by someone else in the comments to the recent Register
article [1].  The person who wanted to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
was HolyFreakinGhost.  Elsewhere there is speculation (from the real Motl)
that the "emissivity of metals" is 0.2 or something on that order [2].  It
seems pretty clear that the E-Cat HT was well painted with black paint; I
do not see how this detail could have been a point of confusion.  However,
if Motl's value of ~0.2 were used for the emissivity, he estimates that the
calculated power would be approximately equal to the input power.

Eric


[1]
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/#c_1833878
[2]
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

So if we're looking for errors in power measurement, we need to be most
> concerned about frequencies below the IR.  The problem for those of us who
> want to find error in the measure is that the peak is in the camera's
> physical sensor bandwidth where we aren't extrapolating -- and the most
> likely source of error is in an area of the spectrum that not only has
> lower luminosity but lower energy per photon.
>

I believe Lubos Motl proposed somewhere that the E-Cat HT surface is not
well-approximated by a blackbody and that the true emissivity is likely to
be T^(4+d), where 0 < d < 1; i.e., that in the worst case scenario there
will be ~T^5 relationship between temperature and power rather than T^4.  I
do not know what to make of this (assuming I have accurately reproduced the
details).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

Erratum:  "luminosity" should read "photon flux"


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> So to continue this line of arithmetic, we have a factor of 10 gain to
> explain.  First of all let's get rid of the Stefan Boltzmann amplification
> of error by taking the fourth root of 10:
>
> 10^(1/4)
> = 1.7782794
>
> That means if we're looking for error as the source of the gain, we have
> to plausibly argue an error of 78% in the portion of the IR camera's
> calibration for Wein's displacement proportionality.  Note, it is a
> proportionality -- a straight linear proportionality -- because we have
> removed the Stefan Boltzmann fourth power from the equation.
>
> Wein's displacement is an approximation of the Plank curve most accurate
> at higher frequencies -- where photons have higher energy.  So if we're
> looking for errors in power measurement, we need to be most concerned about
> frequencies below the IR.  The problem for those of us who want to find
> error in the measure is that the peak is in the camera's physical sensor
> bandwidth where we aren't extrapolating -- and the most likely source of
> error is in an area of the spectrum that not only has lower luminosity but
> lower energy per photon.
>
> Again, I've never seen one of these emotionally committed "skeptics" do so
> much as the simple arithmetic to come up with the factor of 10 figure for
> the November test let alone the "78%"  that results from discounting Stefan
> Boltzmann's sensitivity to error, let alone proceed from there to do the
> arithmetic to estimate what appears to be an insignificant residual error
> in the sensor's calibration software.
>
> That's why I laugh these people off.  There's no point blather with people
> who refuse to do arithmetic regarding the strongest argument of their
> opponents.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I found the major error:
>>
>> The peak wavelength is in the infrared -- as it is with the sun -- and I
>> intuitively thought that the fact that much of the surface was bright red
>> thru yellow meant my picking dull red (700nm) was "conservative".  This
>> then fed via Wien's law proportionately into the fourth power of Stefan
>> Boltzmann's law to produce the 2MW.
>>
>> This arose because I simply neglected to go to the next page after page 2
>> -- where Figure 3 shows the temperature as 793C or 1066K.
>>
>> Recalculating from the substitution for Th:
>>
>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(1291304958736-Tc^4)  ; subst(1066, Th)
>> q=3084.152246988637*pi ;  subst(289, Tc)
>> q=9689W
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> I can't resist:
>>>
>>> What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the
>>> visible wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black
>>> body?
>>>
>>> again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at
>>> 700nm:
>>>
>>> blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin
>>>
>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
>>> subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
>>> q=705199.0585641474*pi
>>> q=2.2154481E6W
>>>
>>>  Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even
>>> 1/10th of that into the E-Cat HT.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
 overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
  Therefore:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)

 Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
 Th=611.17587 Kelvin
 Th=338.026 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter

 Still deep into the infrared.




 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:
>
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
>>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r,
>>> A)
>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ;
>>> subst(5.6703e-8, s)
>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055,
>>> r)
>>>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
>>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>>>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
>>> Th=210.451 Celsius
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

So to continue this line of arithmetic, we have a factor of 10 gain to
explain.  First of all let's get rid of the Stefan Boltzmann amplification
of error by taking the fourth root of 10:

10^(1/4)
= 1.7782794

That means if we're looking for error as the source of the gain, we have to
plausibly argue an error of 78% in the portion of the IR camera's
calibration for Wein's displacement proportionality.  Note, it is a
proportionality -- a straight linear proportionality -- because we have
removed the Stefan Boltzmann fourth power from the equation.

Wein's displacement is an approximation of the Plank curve most accurate at
higher frequencies -- where photons have higher energy.  So if we're
looking for errors in power measurement, we need to be most concerned about
frequencies below the IR.  The problem for those of us who want to find
error in the measure is that the peak is in the camera's physical sensor
bandwidth where we aren't extrapolating -- and the most likely source of
error is in an area of the spectrum that not only has lower luminosity but
lower energy per photon.

Again, I've never seen one of these emotionally committed "skeptics" do so
much as the simple arithmetic to come up with the factor of 10 figure for
the November test let alone the "78%"  that results from discounting Stefan
Boltzmann's sensitivity to error, let alone proceed from there to do the
arithmetic to estimate what appears to be an insignificant residual error
in the sensor's calibration software.

That's why I laugh these people off.  There's no point blather with people
who refuse to do arithmetic regarding the strongest argument of their
opponents.



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I found the major error:
>
> The peak wavelength is in the infrared -- as it is with the sun -- and I
> intuitively thought that the fact that much of the surface was bright red
> thru yellow meant my picking dull red (700nm) was "conservative".  This
> then fed via Wien's law proportionately into the fourth power of Stefan
> Boltzmann's law to produce the 2MW.
>
> This arose because I simply neglected to go to the next page after page 2
> -- where Figure 3 shows the temperature as 793C or 1066K.
>
> Recalculating from the substitution for Th:
>
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(1291304958736-Tc^4)  ; subst(1066, Th)
> q=3084.152246988637*pi ;  subst(289, Tc)
> q=9689W
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I can't resist:
>>
>> What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the
>> visible wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black
>> body?
>>
>> again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at
>> 700nm:
>>
>> blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin
>>
>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
>> subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
>> q=705199.0585641474*pi
>> q=2.2154481E6W
>>
>>  Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even
>> 1/10th of that into the E-Cat HT.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
>>> overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
>>>  Therefore:
>>>
>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
>>> 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)
>>>
>>> Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
>>> Th=611.17587 Kelvin
>>> Th=338.026 Celsius
>>>
>>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>>
>>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter
>>>
>>> Still deep into the infrared.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ;
>> subst(5.6703e-8, s)
>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055,
>> r)
>>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
>> Th=210.451 Celsius
>>
>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>
>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>>
>> or 6 micrometers
>>
>> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
>> convectiv

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alain Sepeda]

seems good description, but I would add a 5th category of target, probably
not targeted because scientist talk naturally to scientists.

-5 industrialists and their engineers, looking for opportunities

It is the only useful target in my opinion.
mainstream scientists will never accept newly coming open mind scientists
or LENR scientists to be funded.

Funding can only came from industrialists, through innovators experienced
in venture management.

the is no hope in normal science during a paradigm change, that is
scientifically proven ( ;-> ).

the report should be rewritten, with the scientific paper as appendix, to
explain what is the result, and why it cannot be error or fraud... targeted
to higher-level  industrialist more experienced with human factors, frauds,
delusion, energy ratios, industrialization problems, than with lab tools,
and able afterward to ask few of their own engineers to check the paper and
make the real peer-review.

anyway the procedure is good, since first the paper should be
peer-reviewed, and the more attacks, the best it can resist to honest
questions later.

2013/5/23 Eric Walker 

> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
> > Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
>> > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
>> > the end).
>>
>> Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
>> available information, and not really central to the paper.
>>
>
> It would have been easy to miss my point, since I expressed it a little
> intemperately.  My point was about communication and not the substance of
> the paper.  As far as I know, Levi and the others measured exactly what
> they said they measured, and Rossi demonstrated a device with COP 2.6+.
>
> I was talking about effective communication.  Who are the authors trying
> to persuade?  Their intended audience will shape the approach they will
> want to take. Four possibilities come to mind:
>
>1. The general public.
>2. Cold fusion people.
>3. Open-minded scientists without much exposure to cold fusion.
>4. Close-minded scientists (Lubos Motl, etc.).
>
> If you're going for (1), you probably also want to aim for (3).  If you're
> going for (3), you should try to meet those folks half-way.  That means
> dotting your i's and crossing your t's.  I would not be surprised if there
> is a body of sociological literature on why the process for preparing a
> paper for submission is so complex and fraught with possible errors.  For
> example, there is the typesetting that I gather the authors are intended to
> do themselves, at least in part.  And any professional scientist is
> expected to have (at some point in the submission process) an impeccable
> command of grammar and punctuation and so on.  I think these things provide
> a signal to others about whether the authors have been thorough.  Did they
> miss something important, e.g., did they forget to look at the power
> supply?  They missed some simple things, like fixing up the funky formula,
> and they didn't bother to ask for help, so perhaps they missed the power
> supply.  This kind of thing is a distraction.  Distractions are bad.
>
> People hold different productions to different standards.  You ignore for
> the most part whether your younger niece is hitting a few wrong notes in a
> piano performance during a holiday and enjoy the show.  You hold a concert
> pianist to a different standard, and those kinds of mistakes look very bad.
>  People in category (3) are expecting something along the lines of the
> latter and will be distracted by something aiming for the standards of the
> former.  Effective communication involves minimizing distraction.  People
> in (3), above, are no doubt looking for journal articles.  If we want to
> persuade them that there might be something to cold fusion, we should try
> to meet them half-way.  Even if journals have a policy of avoiding cold
> fusion articles, people should still aim for the same level of quality.
>
> By the way, I suspect that some (certainly not many) of the close minded
> folks are actually secretly open-minded people and are just playing
> devils advocate to get some good counterarguments.
>
> We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
>> of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
>> And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?
>>
>
> No, it's not that bad.  It's just something that can be expected to
> trigger an alarm bell in a casual observer (need not be a debunker), since
> no mention is made of the earlier paper as far as I can tell.  It gives the
> impression of a naive adoption of the earlier methods.  Anything that
> looks like naivety can be expected to impair effective communication.  I
> get that we here don't have those kinds of filters and are looking at other
> details, but we should not expect open minded scientists to discard them
> all at once.
>
> Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Michele Comitini]

Rossi writes on his blog about Arxiv, peer reviewing, why that report is
not going to be published on a magazine [not a journal], but something
derived from it could/will.



May 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Dear Paolo,
I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some
imprecision:

1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv
has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least
one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee:
try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am
right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine
takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication
on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the
way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find
in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is
signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an
automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It
is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it?
Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a
normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced
to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen
by the examiners for the first publication.

2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I
understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an
abstract of 30 pages of report.
In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely
the job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


2013/5/23 Alan Fletcher 

> > From: "Eric Walker" 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM
> > I wrote:
>
> > Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX
> > and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one
> > hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the
> > other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of
> > submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the
> > details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
> > publication.
>
> http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476&tid=12816817&showall=1
>
> Posted 5/23/2013  4:00:15 AM by Gustav
> It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit
>
>
> > Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> > the end).
>
> Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
> available information, and not really central to the paper.
>
> > Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the
> > approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely
> > [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared
> > camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the
> > Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression
> > that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template.
> > This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible
> > suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi)
> > led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
> > that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names
> > to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.
>
> We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
> of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
> And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:


> As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
> power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?
>

2 kW is not a problem, although modern US safety standards limit power to
1.5 kW. What they cannot do is send enough power to cause 3 mm steel and
ceramic to melt. I do not know how many kilowatts that is but I'm sure it's
more than two.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

I found the major error:

The peak wavelength is in the infrared -- as it is with the sun -- and I
intuitively thought that the fact that much of the surface was bright red
thru yellow meant my picking dull red (700nm) was "conservative".  This
then fed via Wien's law proportionately into the fourth power of Stefan
Boltzmann's law to produce the 2MW.

This arose because I simply neglected to go to the next page after page 2
-- where Figure 3 shows the temperature as 793C or 1066K.

Recalculating from the substitution for Th:

q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(1291304958736-Tc^4)  ; subst(1066, Th)
q=3084.152246988637*pi ;  subst(289, Tc)
q=9689W


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I can't resist:
>
> What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the
> visible wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black
> body?
>
> again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at
> 700nm:
>
> blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin
>
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
> subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
> q=705199.0585641474*pi
> q=2.2154481E6W
>
> Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even 1/10th
> of that into the E-Cat HT.
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
>> overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
>>  Therefore:
>>
>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
>> 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)
>>
>> Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
>> Th=611.17587 Kelvin
>> Th=338.026 Celsius
>>
>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>
>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter
>>
>> Still deep into the infrared.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:
>>>
>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8,
> s)
> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
> Th=210.451 Celsius
>
> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>
> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>
> or 6 micrometers
>
> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
> convective losses).
>
> That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
> wavelength occurred with 360W.
>
>
>
> So, what
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one
>>> of the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>>>
>>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the
>>> radiation wavelengths observed.
>>>
>>
>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
>> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.
>>
>> You might also address the fact that the first device melted.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> > the end).
>
> Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally
> available information, and not really central to the paper.
>

It would have been easy to miss my point, since I expressed it a little
intemperately.  My point was about communication and not the substance of
the paper.  As far as I know, Levi and the others measured exactly what
they said they measured, and Rossi demonstrated a device with COP 2.6+.

I was talking about effective communication.  Who are the authors trying to
persuade?  Their intended audience will shape the approach they will want
to take. Four possibilities come to mind:

   1. The general public.
   2. Cold fusion people.
   3. Open-minded scientists without much exposure to cold fusion.
   4. Close-minded scientists (Lubos Motl, etc.).

If you're going for (1), you probably also want to aim for (3).  If you're
going for (3), you should try to meet those folks half-way.  That means
dotting your i's and crossing your t's.  I would not be surprised if there
is a body of sociological literature on why the process for preparing a
paper for submission is so complex and fraught with possible errors.  For
example, there is the typesetting that I gather the authors are intended to
do themselves, at least in part.  And any professional scientist is
expected to have (at some point in the submission process) an impeccable
command of grammar and punctuation and so on.  I think these things provide
a signal to others about whether the authors have been thorough.  Did they
miss something important, e.g., did they forget to look at the power
supply?  They missed some simple things, like fixing up the funky formula,
and they didn't bother to ask for help, so perhaps they missed the power
supply.  This kind of thing is a distraction.  Distractions are bad.

People hold different productions to different standards.  You ignore for
the most part whether your younger niece is hitting a few wrong notes in a
piano performance during a holiday and enjoy the show.  You hold a concert
pianist to a different standard, and those kinds of mistakes look very bad.
 People in category (3) are expecting something along the lines of the
latter and will be distracted by something aiming for the standards of the
former.  Effective communication involves minimizing distraction.  People
in (3), above, are no doubt looking for journal articles.  If we want to
persuade them that there might be something to cold fusion, we should try
to meet them half-way.  Even if journals have a policy of avoiding cold
fusion articles, people should still aim for the same level of quality.

By the way, I suspect that some (certainly not many) of the close minded
folks are actually secretly open-minded people and are just playing devils
advocate to get some good counterarguments.

We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use
> of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
> And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?
>

No, it's not that bad.  It's just something that can be expected to trigger
an alarm bell in a casual observer (need not be a debunker), since no
mention is made of the earlier paper as far as I can tell.  It gives the
impression of a naive adoption of the earlier methods.  Anything that
looks like naivety can be expected to impair effective communication.  I
get that we here don't have those kinds of filters and are looking at other
details, but we should not expect open minded scientists to discard them
all at once.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Duncan Cumming  wrote:


> Power measurement was done using a wide band 3 phase power meter, a
> notoriously difficult instrument to use. A slight slackening of one of the
> current sensing clamps . . .
>

This would be detected during the calibration with a resistor, and again
during the calibration with a blank cell. (In an interview Essen said they
calibrated with a resistor.)



> . . .  a particle of grit (or Scotch tape) on the clamp face, or
> mis-threading of the cables through the clamps would give lower than actual
> power readings.
>

This would be caught by the resister test, I believe.



> A controller could easily be designed to bamboozle such a power meter . . .
>

Rossi could only do this if he knew in advance which meter they were
bringing.



> In short, the power measurement could have been fiddled very easily.
>

I doubt it. If it were that easy for a power meter to fail, electrical and
electronic equipment all over Atlanta would be burning up every day. My
point is that "fiddling" with equipment is functionally the same as making
a mistake, only people make mistakes far more often they deliberately make
fake results. People make mistakes every day all day long and yet our
electrical equipment survives.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Robert Lynn]

Have a bit more of a think about it Jed, IR laser beams wouldn't need to be
any more intense than the heat being radiated by the E-cat.  In fact by
shining in from multiple directions they could be less intense than the
emitted heat from the E-cat (like concentrating relatively diffuse sunlight
to make something hotter at the focus point).  So how would that "burn or
blind people"?  Are you burnt or blinded by looking at something glowing
red-hot?

As for the other; are you seriously disputing that 2kW of AC electrical
power could be sent through those wires to the Ecat?  Take test 1: If 400V
rms AC was connected then that is only 5A rms which a 1mm diameter copper
wire can easily handle.

Now set up your 'visible' signal to be 50hZ 400V 2.5A turned on about 1/3
of time.  Meter detects this with ease.
Add a 50khz AC 400V rms 4A rms AC supply to that and you deliver another
1600W  that is invisible to the low frequency sensitive meter.
Knowing more about the meter would allow more sophisticated choices to beat
it.  DC might also be undetectable depending upon the instruments used.

Neither of these scenarios is likely, but they don't appear to be ruled out
by what is published.  The November melt-down demo is also very interesting.



On 22 May 2013 23:15, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
>> cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
>> all seen it.
>>
>
> Oops. You said infrared lasers. My mistake.
>
> My other points hold. People would be burned and blinded.
>
> It just isn't possible.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Duncan Cumming]

 Original Message 
Subject:Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2013 10:20:27 -0700
From:   Duncan Cumming 
To: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com



I am acting as devils advocate here for a minute.

Had the demo been intentionally faked, there are a lot of much easier 
ways to do it than re-wiring the building! Power measurement was done 
using a wide band 3 phase power meter, a notoriously difficult 
instrument to use. A slight slackening of one of the current sensing 
clamps, a particle of grit (or Scotch tape) on the clamp face, or 
mis-threading of the cables through the clamps would give lower than 
actual power readings. A controller could easily be designed to 
bamboozle such a power meter, by exceeding either the shape factor or 
the bandwidth spec of the power meter. No measurements were made of the 
current waveform, which measurements would have immediately exposed such 
chicanery.


In short, the power measurement could have been fiddled very easily. Now 
I am not saying that it was, merely that it would have been easy to do 
so. The way to avoid such problems in the future would be simply to use 
DC to power the heaters. Or have the reactor tube tested at somebody 
else's facility, with a manufacturer's rep present to ensure that nobody 
saws the tube in half. Or to use an ordinary tube furnace with cooling 
coils for a self sustaining test.


In other words, if the manufacturer really wanted to test the reactor 
properly, they could - easily.


Duncan


 Original Message 
Subject:        Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
Resent-Date:Thu, 23 May 2013 09:01:42 -0700
Resent-From:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2013 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Alan Fletcher 
Reply-To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com




From: "Eric Walker"
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:00:43 PM
Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all,
were plugged into the same power supply. Would hidden DC or AC above
or below the range of the meter hurt the laptop?


That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Eric Walker" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM
> I wrote:

> Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX
> and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one
> hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the
> other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of
> submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the
> details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
> publication.

http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476&tid=12816817&showall=1

Posted 5/23/2013  4:00:15 AM by Gustav  
It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit


> Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication
> in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at
> the end). 

Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally available 
information, and not really central to the paper.
 
> Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the
> approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely
> [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared
> camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the
> Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression
> that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template.
> This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible
> suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi)
> led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
> that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names
> to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use of 
the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg?
And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Eric Walker" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:00:43 PM
> Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all,
> were plugged into the same power supply. Would hidden DC or AC above
> or below the range of the meter hurt the laptop?

That was me -- and only a couple of things were plugged into the same socket -- 
the meter and a camera. The laptops were further over on a separate plug.

And of course, since the whole building was wired for the power-input fake, 
just that ONE socket for the controller would have been rigged, set up before 
the test team arrived. (Certainly for the December test -- they said it was 
already running.)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX and
> LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a
> simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the other.  Presumably
> the former would be the expected form of submission to a mainstream physics
> journal.  This is one of the details that makes me think there is no
> intention to submit for publication.
>

Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication in a
reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at the end).
(This tip courtesy of HolyFreakinGhost in the comments to [1]). I am a big
fan of Wikipedia; far more so than Jed.  But one would hesitate to cite
Wikipedia as an authority in an article being prepared for submission to a
mainstream science journal.  The truth is that this paper has been prepared
in the manner of cold fusion papers -- a best effort, and with the promise
of thought-provoking substantive claims, but without the level of attention
to detail (formatting, punctuation, etc.) expected of a submission to a
normal journal.  We should not be surprised when people balk at these
things.

Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the approach of
the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely [2].  In that paper
there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared camera, the radiation
measurements by David Bianchini, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc.  One
gets the distinct impression that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012
paper as a template.  This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes
plausible suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer
(Levi) led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and
that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names to be
added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence.

The point I'm making has less to do with the substance of the paper than
the execution -- what is the paper trying to achieve, and who is the
audience it is trying to convince?  If the audience are mainstream
scientists, I doubt it will have the intended effect.

Eric

[1]
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/
[2]
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andrew  wrote:

**
> Since the experimenters walked up to the experiment *after* it had been
> turned on, we don't know for sure whether the existing cabling was used to
> impart the RF, or a separate kickstart cable.
>

There were three runs.  The first run (November 2012) was abortive.  The
second run (December 2012) was already started when they began their
measurements.  It seems they were present during the third run (March 2013)
when the E-Cat was started (p. 15).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Robert Lynn  wrote:

Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
> electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
> have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
> however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks.
>

Alan (or someone) made the point that everything, laptop and all, were
plugged into the same power supply.  Would hidden DC or AC above or below
the range of the meter hurt the laptop?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

I can't resist:

What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the visible
wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black body?

again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at 700nm:

blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143   kelvin

q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4)  ;
subst(4139.6692857143, Th)
q=705199.0585641474*pi
q=2.2154481E6W

Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even 1/10th of
that into the E-Cat HT.


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
> overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
>  Therefore:
>
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
> 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)
>
> Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
> Th=611.17587 Kelvin
> Th=338.026 Celsius
>
> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>
> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter
>
> Still deep into the infrared.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:
>>
>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
 q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8,
 s)
 q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
 q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
 Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
 Th=210.451 Celsius

 using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

 peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

 or 6 micrometers

 That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
 convective losses).

 That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
 wavelength occurred with 360W.



 So, what


 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one
>> of the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>>
>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the
>> radiation wavelengths observed.
>>
>
> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.
>
> You might also address the fact that the first device melted.
>
> - Jed
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

One final erratum (hopefully):  In the November run when the device
overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W.
 Therefore:

360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)
1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441)  ; subst(1000, 360)

Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th)
Th=611.17587 Kelvin
Th=338.026 Celsius

using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter

Still deep into the infrared.




On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:
>
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
>>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
>>>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
>>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>>>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
>>> Th=210.451 Celsius
>>>
>>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>>
>>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>>>
>>> or 6 micrometers
>>>
>>> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
>>> convective losses).
>>>
>>> That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
>>> wavelength occurred with 360W.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, what
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 James Bowery  wrote:


> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
> the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>
> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
> wavelengths observed.
>

 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Axil Axil]

peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

or 6 micrometers

That is about the diameter of the Rossi micro-powder, could there be a
dipole blackbody resonant condition at work here?  Of course there is!


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:59 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:
>
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
>>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
>>>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
>>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>>>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
>>> Th=210.451 Celsius
>>>
>>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>>
>>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>>>
>>> or 6 micrometers
>>>
>>> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no
>>> convective losses).
>>>
>>> That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
>>> wavelength occurred with 360W.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, what
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 James Bowery  wrote:


> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
> the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>
> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
> wavelengths observed.
>

 You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
 detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
 helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

 You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

 - Jed


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature:

360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ;  subst(289)

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
>>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
>> Th=210.451 Celsius
>>
>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>>
>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>>
>> or 6 micrometers
>>
>> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective
>> losses).
>>
>> That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible
>> wavelength occurred with 360W.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, what
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
 the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

 That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
 wavelengths observed.

>>>
>>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
>>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
>>> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.
>>>
>>> You might also address the fact that the first device melted.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

Erratum:  Strike the "So, what..."


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
>  q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
>  Th=483.6006 Kelvin
> Th=210.451 Celsius
>
> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php
>
> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter
>
> or 6 micrometers
>
> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective
> losses).
>
> That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible wavelength
> occurred with 360W.
>
>
>
> So, what
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
>>> the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>>>
>>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
>>> wavelengths observed.
>>>
>>
>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be
>> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.
>>
>> You might also address the fact that the first device melted.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A
q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A)
q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(5.6703e-8, s)
q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.055, r)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(.33, l)
q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(1, eps)
360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4)  ; subst(360, q)
Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4)  ; solve(Th)
Th=483.6006 Kelvin
Th=210.451 Celsius

using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php

peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter

or 6 micrometers

That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective
losses).

That is way into the infrared.  The excursions into the visible wavelength
occurred with 360W.



So, what


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of
>> the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>>
>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
>> wavelengths observed.
>>
>
> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed
> discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be helpful.
> Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.
>
> You might also address the fact that the first device melted.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Axil Axil]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Robert Lynn  wrote:

> An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over
> a wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
> weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat
> (could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in
> front).  Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only
> cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars.
>
> And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
> are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
> across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
> distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
> AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
> be invisible to the meter.
>
> It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot
> measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp
> ammeters can.
>
> http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat&_listpos=12
> Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely
> to have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with
> the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they
> probably couldn't during the test).
>
> And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also
> need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just
> as for the 3 phase power supply.
>
> Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
> electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
> have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
> however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks.
>
> I am on balance fairly convinced, but like many I harbour doubts about
> Rossi based on his dodgy history and apparent willingness to mislead at
> times.  It needs rigorous (skeptical) testing to really get doubters onside.
>
>
> On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>>  You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
>> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
>> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
>> reality.
>>
>> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can
>> be set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>>
>> Dave
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>>
>>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
>> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>>
>> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* David Roberson 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>>
>>  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
>> they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>>
>> Dave
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Terry Blanton 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>>
>> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>>
>> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>>
>> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
>> create spot heating of the test device.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Axil Axil]

Rossi would have had to design a world class electric fraud plan to
anticipate what equipment was going to be used in the test.


He did not know what the test plan was and could not know if this fraud
plan would cover every case and equipment configuration.

As a test plan developer myself, I would be hard put to come up with a
fraud plan that was perfect in every possible case, knowing full well if I
failed to pull off the scam plan, the scam I had worked so hard to develop
would then be all over and exposed.


No, the best solution to the systems design is to insure that the system
works. This in itself is very hard to do.


Even in scamming, Kiss is important. I would not first melt down a system
as a ploy, which is way too complicated of a scam plan, IMHO.


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
> An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over
>> a wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
>> weren't looking at it . . .
>>
>
> You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
> cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
> all seen it.
>
> If you got near it or put your hand over it, you would  be burned. At
> those power levels, if you looked up, you would be permanently blinded.
>
> This scenario is 100% impossible.
>
>
>
>> And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
>> are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
>> across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
>> distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
>> AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
>> be invisible to the meter.
>>
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now explain how you could use these invisible
> frequencies to send enough electricity through an ordinary wire to melt
> ceramics and 3 mm thick steel, without melting the wire.
>
> If you can't explain how to do that, you can forget this and all other
> hidden electricity hypotheses.
>
> Keep it simple. Address the big questions and the obviously questions
> first. Then tell us about DC and other distortions.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
> cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
> all seen it.
>

Oops. You said infrared lasers. My mistake.

My other points hold. People would be burned and blinded.

It just isn't possible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:

An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over a
> wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
> weren't looking at it . . .
>

You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a
cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have
all seen it.

If you got near it or put your hand over it, you would  be burned. At those
power levels, if you looked up, you would be permanently blinded.

This scenario is 100% impossible.



> And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
> are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
> across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
> distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
> AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
> be invisible to the meter.
>

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now explain how you could use these invisible frequencies
to send enough electricity through an ordinary wire to melt ceramics and 3
mm thick steel, without melting the wire.

If you can't explain how to do that, you can forget this and all other
hidden electricity hypotheses.

Keep it simple. Address the big questions and the obviously questions
first. Then tell us about DC and other distortions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Daniel Rocha]

Realistic speaking, to get a "respectable" scientists or engineers doing
formal peer review for a magazine is an impossible task right now. So, this
is a catch 22 problem to begin with.


2013/5/22 Brad Lowe 

> Besides a circuit diagram showing all of the inputs, outputs, and test
> equipment, are there some other notes that should be added to the report?
> Anyone know if "peer review" is in the works?
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Robert Lynn]

An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over a
wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you
weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat
(could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in
front).  Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only
cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars.

And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies.  Clamp ammeters
are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages
across all the wires.  The meter in question can measure harmonic
distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase
AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely
be invisible to the meter.

It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot
measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp
ammeters can.
http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat&_listpos=12
Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely to
have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with
the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they
probably couldn't during the test).

And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also
need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just
as for the 3 phase power supply.

Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional
electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't
have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues,
however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks.

I am on balance fairly convinced, but like many I harbour doubts about
Rossi based on his dodgy history and apparent willingness to mislead at
times.  It needs rigorous (skeptical) testing to really get doubters onside.


On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson  wrote:

> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
> reality.
>
> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Andrew 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>
> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
> they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
> Dave
>  -----Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
> create spot heating of the test device.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Brad Lowe]

Did anyone scope the the power in for 50Hz? Or allow the researchers to
choose any outlet? I imagine anything on the same heater circuit would fry
if someone tried to insert an extra 500 watts. A light bulb added to the
circuit would have detected additional power... or any decent UPS will
include power line conditioning which will deliever a pure sine wave AC
voltage..

Besides a circuit diagram showing all of the inputs, outputs, and test
equipment, are there some other notes that should be added to the report?
Anyone know if "peer review" is in the works?

I think its exciting to think that this test was done accurately and we can
anticipate that there will be more positive tests like this to follow in
the very near future.

- Brad






On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
>>> wavelengths observed.
>>>
>>
>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more
>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples?
>>
>
> I realize you challenged Mary Yugo and other skeptics to do this analysis.
> That is a forlorn hope. They will not do it. So, why don't you do it? I
> would appreciate that. Others here can check your work.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
>> wavelengths observed.
>>
>
> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed
> discussion of that, with equations and examples?
>

I realize you challenged Mary Yugo and other skeptics to do this analysis.
That is a forlorn hope. They will not do it. So, why don't you do it? I
would appreciate that. Others here can check your work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of the
> strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:
>
> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
> wavelengths observed.
>

You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed
discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be helpful.
Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily.

You might also address the fact that the first device melted.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ...
> I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart
> the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off
> during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through
> an ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not
> possible. You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have
> burned. The other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit
> would have been roached.
>
>
There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of the
strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid:

That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation
wavelengths observed.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[James Bowery]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> **
> I doubt that Rossi would allow a power conditioner, because he himself
> states that there is some initial RF powering going on to kickstart the
> device.
>
> You misunderstand:

The power conditioner would be placed between the wall socket and any other
equipment in the room, including the RF  generator.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Andrew]

Talar ni Svenska. Not much, anyway.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed


  Andrew  wrote:


There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from 
the light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from someone 
who understands the issues.


  And who understands Swedish. Any volunteers?


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:


> There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from
> the light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from
> someone who understands the issues.
>

And who understands Swedish. Any volunteers?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Andrew]

I doubt that Rossi would allow a power conditioner, because he himself states 
that there is some initial RF powering going on to kickstart the device. Since 
the experimenters walked up to the experiment after it had been turned on, we 
don't know for sure whether the existing cabling was used to impart the RF, or 
a separate kickstart cable. Were I to guess, I would assume that the existing 
cabling was used, and that the RF generator resides in the control box.

There's a whole lot of detail about the input side that would benefit from the 
light of day. What's required is an interview with the Swedes from someone who 
understands the issues.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed


  Alan Fletcher  wrote:



I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side 
fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe miswired 
per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.



  That would do it. But the fact is, any $20 watt meter would also do it. 
Experts tell me there is no way you can fool one. They are better than meters 
costing thousands of dollars were 20 years ago.


  Levi has one of those things. I expect he used it. He did in previous tests.


  I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart 
the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off 
during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through an 
ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not possible. 
You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have burned. The 
other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit would have been 
roached.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

It can be done.  Give it a try and you might become convinced.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors
> (more than half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I can do a zero'th order model with 2 linear resistors, a capacitor and a 
non-linear resistor.
(I'd have to figure out how to do a T^4 model. Maybe a lookup table)

But I still think it's a waste of time, so I'm going to update my fakes paper 
first.


 

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Arnaud Kodeck]

> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
> Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 22:19
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed
> 
> > Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6
> > decimal places .. IF you do it correctly,
> > but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
> > (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side
> fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe
> miswired per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.
> 
> I'd recommend a motor-generator, as it gives a nice sine output. Then the
> meter will work correctly, between the conditioner and the control box.

A basic quality control check of the power-side will be at first a good
step. The idea to put conditioner between Rossi's plug and the wall power
socket will remove any doubt for a miswired error (Voluntary or not)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side
> fake is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe
> miswired per Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.
>

That would do it. But the fact is, any $20 watt meter would also do it.
Experts tell me there is no way you can fool one. They are better than
meters costing thousands of dollars were 20 years ago.

Levi has one of those things. I expect he used it. He did in previous tests.

I suggest you should stop fantasizing about this. Rossi did not take apart
the wall and install secret equipment that he turned on and then turned off
during the calibration. He did not find a way to send so much power through
an ordinary electric cord that he melted steel and ceramic. That is not
possible. You can dismiss it from your mind. The electric cord would have
burned. The other gadgets such as the computers plugged into that circuit
would have been roached.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem : power conditioner needed

[Alan Fletcher]

> Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6
> decimal places .. IF you do it correctly,
> but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
> (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the power-side fake 
is to put a power conditioner between Rossi's power plug (maybe miswired per 
Bryce etc, or with a DC component) and his control box.

I'd recommend a motor-generator, as it gives a nice sine output. Then the meter 
will work correctly, between the conditioner and the control box. 

They run at 95% + efficiency. You can probably rent one for 6 months.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors
> (more than half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I can do a zero'th order model with 2 linear resistors, a capacitor and a 
non-linear resistor.
(I'd have to figure out how to do a T^4 model. Maybe a lookup table)

But I still think it's a waste of time, so I'm going to update my fakes paper 
first.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Alan, we have too many crows around here and I will capture some for you if 
required.

The key thought about the temperature waveform is as follows:  Rossi wants to 
have the largest possible stable COP.  You achieve that by allowing the 
temperature of the heat producing material to reach a value where the internal 
heat generation is exactly balanced by the heat being extracted to the outside.

If you do not keep the temperature slightly below this point then the device 
will proceed toward thermal failure.  The closer you can approach this critical 
temperature, the longer the temperature will hesitate before beginning its 
downward path.  I have played with a model with this characteristic and find 
that the COP of 6 is not too difficult to achieve, but trying to obtain more 
tends to eliminate the margin you need for stable operation.

It is also necessary to operate the system in a pulse width modulation mode 
just as Rossi demonstrates.   His waveforms shown in the third party test are 
entirely consistent.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> From: "James Bowery" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:33 AM

> p18 "The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same
> control box, but without the ON/OFF
> cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was
> continuous"
> 
> 
> That would be fine if the dynamics weren't important to the test, but
> on p25 we see:
> 
> 
> "Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over
> several minutes of
> operation. Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which
> appear to be different from
> the exponential characteristics of generic resistor."

As I indicated earlier, the exponential RC time constant depends on a SINGLE 
LINEAR resistor (conductivity*length) and Capacitor (specific heat*volume).

First, even if they were linear, it's a complex MESH of RC's (see my Spice 
analysis of the heat exchanger).

Second, the dominant term in heat loss from the surface of the cylinder (ie the 
resistor) is radiative, varying as T^4
Only the smaller convective component is linear with temperature.

Third, we know where the heating resistor is. But we don't know where the Ni/H 
"thermalization" occurs. In the powder? In the H? In the steel surrounding the 
powder?

I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors (more than 
half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I'd eat crow/my hat/whatever if the result came out even vaguely exponential.

This is a red herring (ie a complete distraction and waste of time) which is 
irrelevant to determining the nature and source of heat.


 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "James Bowery" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:41:33 AM

> p18 "The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same
> control box, but without the ON/OFF
> cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was
> continuous"
> 
> 
> That would be fine if the dynamics weren't important to the test, but
> on p25 we see:
> 
> 
> "Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over
> several minutes of
> operation. Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which
> appear to be different from
> the exponential characteristics of generic resistor."

As I indicated earlier, the exponential RC time constant depends on a SINGLE 
LINEAR resistor (conductivity*length) and Capacitor (specific heat*volume).

First, even if they were linear, it's a complex MESH of RC's (see my Spice 
analysis of the heat exchanger).

Second, the dominant term in heat loss from the surface of the cylinder (ie the 
resistor) is radiative, varying as T^4
Only the smaller convective component is linear with temperature.

Third, we know where the heating resistor is. But we don't know where the Ni/H 
"thermalization" occurs. In the powder? In the H? In the steel surrounding the 
powder?

I sketched a tentative RC mesh model. It has at LEAST 30 resistors (more than 
half non-linear) and 10 Capacitors.

I'd eat crow/my hat/whatever if the result came out even vaguely exponential.

This is a red herring (ie a complete distraction and waste of time) which is 
irrelevant to determining the nature and source of heat.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[James Bowery]

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay
> curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does
> not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat
> producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.
>

Did Fleishmann take into account the dynamics of the control cell in
interpreting the curve?

p18 "The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box,
but without the ON/OFF
cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was
continuous"

That would be fine if the dynamics weren't important to the test, but on
p25 we see:

"Plot 3. Average surface temperature trend of the E-Cat HT2 over several
minutes of
operation.  Note the heating and cooling trends of the device, which appear
to be different from
the exponential characteristics of generic resistor."

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

We might find out how the skeptics do in Rossi's shoes soon.  They are facing 
some difficult times trying to prove that Rossi and the third party tests are 
not accurate.  I wonder how fast they can backpedal?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Excellent analysis, Jones. You have nailed the essential reason why this is not 
a scam. Jed has done the same. Instead, Rossi is doing what other people do all 
the time in all aspects of science and commerce, but he is doing it under a 
microscope. Most similar efforts are just as filled with reasons to critique, 
but no one cares to do this. In fact I have reviewed hundreds of papers and I 
have never found a single one that did not contain a flaw or poor explanation 
that a determined critic could not exploit. Rossi is doing a good job under 
difficult circumstances. I wonder how well the skeptics would perform if they 
were in Rossi's shoes?


Ed Storms

On May 22, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



 
From: Jed Rothwell
 

Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying job. 
He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough that he 
receives enough capital for adequate living standards. 

This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a difficult 
time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own money on this. If he 
engaged in a con game he has conned himself.

He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.



Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could have 
retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of public record.
 
Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does 
that sound like a scammer?
 
It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of a 
profitable company – and then reinvestment the proceeds to perpetuate as scam, 
with which to obtain enough capital for “adequate living” when he already had 
that to begin with. Instead he has to go through the constant reminders of his 
past legal difficulties, in order to find a solution to one of societies 
greatest problems?
 
Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc - who blindly suggest scam because 
they personally were not honored with a demo - ought to at least do their 
homework first and read what is available in the public record before spouting 
crap about scam, since there is no plausible motive which would be worth the 
risk.
 
Jones
 
 

 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Edmund Storms]

Excellent analysis, Jones. You have nailed the essential reason why  
this is not a scam. Jed has done the same. Instead, Rossi is doing  
what other people do all the time in all aspects of science and  
commerce, but he is doing it under a microscope. Most similar efforts  
are just as filled with reasons to critique, but no one cares to do  
this. In fact I have reviewed hundreds of papers and I have never  
found a single one that did not contain a flaw or poor explanation  
that a determined critic could not exploit. Rossi is doing a good job  
under difficult circumstances. I wonder how well the skeptics would  
perform if they were in Rossi's shoes?


Ed Storms
On May 22, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



From: Jed Rothwell

Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good  
paying job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is  
plenty enough that he receives enough capital for adequate living  
standards.
This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a  
difficult time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own  
money on this. If he engaged in a con game he has conned himself.


He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.


Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and  
could have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a  
matter of public record.


Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his  
project ! Does that sound like a scammer?


It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of  
a profitable company – and then reinvestment the proceeds to  
perpetuate as scam, with which to obtain enough capital for  
“adequate living” when he already had that to begin with. Instead he  
has to go through the constant reminders of his past legal  
difficulties, in order to find a solution to one of societies  
greatest problems?


Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc - who blindly suggest scam  
because they personally were not honored with a demo - ought to at  
least do their homework first and read what is available in the  
public record before spouting crap about scam, since there is no  
plausible motive which would be worth the risk.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Depends upon your retirement age. :-)  $100k will work if you are 90.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
> have retired comfortably to Miami on that income.

You can retire on $1.3M?  Can you show me how?  I think I need about $3M.


 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
> have retired comfortably to Miami on that income.

You can retire on $1.3M?  Can you show me how?  I think I need about $3M.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

There are just too many positive indicators for this to be a scam.  I guess the 
skeptics are reaching for straws in any way they can after the release of the 
third party report.  Any bets as to how long they remain on the wrong side of 
history?

Has everyone noticed the lack of comments from Mr. Cude?  Perhaps he should 
give us his point of view as it will be enlightening.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Jones Beene  wrote:




Plus, AR sold his biofuelcompany EON for about one million Euro and could have 
retired comfortably toMiami on that income. This is a matter of public record. 
 
Instead - he reinvests theproceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does that 
sound like a scammer?




This reminds me of the old joke: "Do you know how to make a small fortune in 
[cold fusion / real estate / software]? Start with a large fortune."


As Jones says, there is no motive and no evidence of a scam.




Regarding Krivit -- the man in the pulpit -- he added some interesting comments 
from Essen here:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

(Scroll down)

Essen said what I said, I am glad to see:


SBK: Is there any reason you did not use either mass-flow calorimetry or 
envelope calorimetry to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
HE: Yes, practical reasons. The current setup made it difficult. (Practical 
reasons determined by the reactor, its placement, and the available equipment.)

[I would add, as I did the other day, this would quench the reaction, or cause 
a steam explosion. It would be difficult.]


Here are two other interesting details:

SBK: Who acquired or supplied the instrumentation?
HE: Giuseppe Levi mainly, with some input from the Uppsala group.

SBK: Who tested and/or calibrated the instrumentation?
HE: Levi and Foschi did the main work, but several cross-checks were done by 
the rest of the participants. The temperature measurement cameras were checked 
on boiling water. The electric measurements were checked with standard 
resistors.






- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
> have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of
> public record. 
>
> ** **
>
> Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project !
> Does that sound like a scammer?
>

This reminds me of the old joke: "Do you know how to make a small fortune
in [cold fusion / real estate / software]? Start with a large fortune."

As Jones says, there is no motive and no evidence of a scam.


Regarding Krivit -- the man in the pulpit -- he added some interesting
comments from Essen here:

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

(Scroll down)

Essen said what I said, I am glad to see:


SBK: Is there any reason you did not use either mass-flow calorimetry or
envelope calorimetry to analyze for total heat enthalpy?
HE: Yes, practical reasons. The current setup made it difficult. (Practical
reasons determined by the reactor, its placement, and the available
equipment.)

[I would add, as I did the other day, this would quench the reaction, or
cause a steam explosion. It would be difficult.]


Here are two other interesting details:

SBK: Who acquired or supplied the instrumentation?
HE: Giuseppe Levi mainly, with some input from the Uppsala group.

SBK: Who tested and/or calibrated the instrumentation?
HE: Levi and Foschi did the main work, but several cross-checks were done
by the rest of the participants. The temperature measurement cameras were
checked on boiling water. The electric measurements were checked with
standard resistors.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying
job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough
that he receives enough capital for adequate living standards. 

This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a difficult
time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own money on this. If
he engaged in a con game he has conned himself.

He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.




Plus, AR sold his biofuel company EON for about one million Euro and could
have retired comfortably to Miami on that income. This is a matter of public
record. 

 

Instead - he reinvests the proceeds of the EON sale into his project ! Does
that sound like a scammer?

 

It is preposterous that anyone would claim that he does this sale of a
profitable company - and then reinvestment the proceeds to perpetuate as
scam, with which to obtain enough capital for "adequate living" when he
already had that to begin with. Instead he has to go through the constant
reminders of his past legal difficulties, in order to find a solution to one
of societies greatest problems?

 

Get a life! These people like Krivit, etc - who blindly suggest scam because
they personally were not honored with a demo - ought to at least do their
homework first and read what is available in the public record before
spouting crap about scam, since there is no plausible motive which would be
worth the risk.

 

Jones

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

 Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good
paying job. He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is
plenty enough that he receives enough capital for adequate living
standards.

This would be the world's worst way to make a living! Rossi has a difficult
time with money. He has spent tremendous amount of his own money on this.
If he engaged in a con game he has conned himself.

He is the least convincing confidence man I have ever heard of.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 

> But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of 
> temperature stimulus will do... It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter


Yes, this would add another level of evidence. Plus - Brian Ahern has offered 
to build and send a non-contact liquid-flow calorimeter to Rossi in Italy or in 
Miami. Since the calorimeter does not touch the HotCat device, it cannot change 
or degrade the operating characteristics. With that type of calorimeter and a 
precision gas meter, there would seem to be little chance of cheating.

Actually, Rossi might very well accept Ahern's offer this time, although he 
might not have accepted 6 months ago. 

He seems to have made a large advance in his ability to control the reaction - 
even if it is not yet ready for commercialization.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

It's steel (with different steel end caps), inside corundum ceramic, inside 
silicon nitride ceramic, with a  coat of paint.


Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson  
wrote:

The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly


I thought the first test used a ceramic.

Darn, gotta read it again.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
> The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly

I thought the first test used a ceramic.

Darn, gotta read it again.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jouni Valkonen]

I think that there is plenty enough benefit that Rossi has a good paying job. 
He does not need to make millions out of it, but it is plenty enough that he 
receives enough capital for adequate living standards. 

There are plenty other similar hoaxes such as BLP, Steorn and Inteligentry who 
are running extended hoaxes. Although Inteligentry's tale is probably finished 
due to FBI raid.

It must be understood that these "inventions" are the most important inventions 
in the history of industrial age. Therefore they are just too valuable to be 
kept hidden for decades. Rossi has been around already 6 years and he is doing 
still rather well financially.

As successful and practical cold fusion would be pushing World civilization 
immediately into level 1.0 at kardashev scale, Rossi has delayed this 
transformation already six years due to his greed. Of course Rossi is not the 
greediest person who have ever lived, but he is just doing something that is 
profitable enough for extended periods of time. Soon Rossi is ready to retire 
due to age.

If Rossi would go public with his device, Oil price would go down 75 % in just 
few months, because the average production cost of oil is $25 per barrel. This 
would be the first global effect and they are certainly not small, if e-cat's 
impact is measured in dollars.

―Jouni


On May 22, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>> What do you think of my hoax theories?
> 
> Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself "Where is the benefit?"
> 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

And I'll excerpt a comment
Rossi has been challenged to do a test where the power levels in all three 
wires supplying the apparatus are measured and he has refused. I have quickly 
skimbled the paper and the power measurement section makes no mention of 
measuring the power levels in all the cores connected up.

Given Rossi's history of fraud (Google it but there is a failed thermoelectric 
generator using waste heat and a failed oil from waste firm) one has to take 
him with a very large pinch of salt.

So - about these "premier scientists" who "investigated" and "tested" this 
device. They are not looking very good at the moment, are they?

The fly in the ointment is that the calibration run worked.

Andrew

- Original Message - 

  From: Patrick Ellul 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:06 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Just adding a link to the register article. 

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/

  On 22/05/2013 5:55 PM, "Arnaud Kodeck"  wrote:

I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power! On
the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the
measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases
only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3
phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For
example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why
they should have checked:
- The quality of the ground
- The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
phases
- The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
- The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did
the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al.

To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ?

Arnaud
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
> Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00
    > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  > So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.
>
> Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up
> on it.
> (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).
>
> Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the
> documented COP.
>
> Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal
> places .. IF you do it correctly,
> but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
> (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).
>
> But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of
> temperature stimulus will do.
>
> It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT
> power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Patrick Ellul]

Just adding a link to the register article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/
On 22/05/2013 5:55 PM, "Arnaud Kodeck"  wrote:

> I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power!
> On
> the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the
> measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases
> only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3
> phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For
> example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why
> they should have checked:
> - The quality of the ground
> - The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
> phases
> - The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
> - The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line
>
> That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did
> the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al.
>
> To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ?
>
> Arnaud
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
> > Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
> >
> >  > So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.
> >
> > Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up
> > on it.
> > (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).
> >
> > Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the
> > documented COP.
> >
> > Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal
> > places .. IF you do it correctly,
> > but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
> > (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).
> >
> > But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of
> > temperature stimulus will do.
> >
> > It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT
> > power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Arnaud Kodeck]

I'm wondering if Levi and al checked the quality of the electrical power! On
the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the
measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases
only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3
phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn't as expected. For
example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That's why
they should have checked:
- The quality of the ground
- The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
phases
- The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
- The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

That check will remove every concern about electrical input. Maybe they did
the check but there is no mention about that in the report of Levi and al.

To whom may I address this concern at the Levi's team and how ?

Arnaud
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com]
> Sent: mercredi 22 mai 2013 09:00
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
> 
>  > So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.
> 
> Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up
> on it.
> (Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).
> 
> Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the
> documented COP.
> 
> Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal
> places .. IF you do it correctly,
> but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
> (eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).
> 
> But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of
> temperature stimulus will do.
> 
> It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT
> power delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

 > So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative.

Bear in  mind that when Rossi says he has something he tends to follow up on it.
(Maybe not exactly as promised, but close to it).

Let's accept for the moment the OUTPUT analysis : it DOES produce the 
documented COP.

Electrical INPUT is a two-edged sword. It can be measured to 6 decimal places 
.. IF you do it correctly,
but if you don't cover ALL bases you might miss something.
(eg an AC-only meter might not notice DC, or HF AC beyond its spec).

But Rossi says he has a GAS-POWERED eCat. I believe him: ANY source of 
temperature stimulus will do.

It's rather hard to modulate/cheat a GAS meter, though the actual INPUT power 
delivered might only be known to ONE decimal place.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

Actually, this is something I noticed in arxiv, pre prints of people
outside theoretical physics, have the appearance of being done in word
processors. They are later edited to the final form in journals.


2013/5/22 Eric Walker 

> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini <
> michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
>> full article.  No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
>> mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX.  If one does
>> it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework.
>>  This is a  (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using
>> a wysiwyg word processor suffice.
>>
>
> I think this argument is a good one.  It suggests that the authors have
> not prepared the paper for submission to a physics journal; or, that, at
> any rate, it is not far along in the process.  Lubos Motl does not appear
> to be drawing a distinction between TeX and LaTeX; he is drawing a
> distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a
> normal word processor, on the other.  Presumably the former would be the
> expected form of submission to a mainstream physics journal.  This is one
> of the details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for
> publication.
>
> Eric
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Michele Comitini <
michele.comit...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following argument is complete nonsense and stops me from reading the
> full article.  No one, unless writing a book that requires complex
> mathematical notation is so foul to use TeX instead of LaTeX.  If one does
> it means that he spends more time studying TeX than doing his homework.
>  This is a  (even if fundamental) report not a mathematical essay so using
> a wysiwyg word processor suffice.
>

I think this argument is a good one.  It suggests that the authors have not
prepared the paper for submission to a physics journal; or, that, at any
rate, it is not far along in the process.  Lubos Motl does not appear to be
drawing a distinction between TeX and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction
between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word
processor, on the other.  Presumably the former would be the expected form
of submission to a mainstream physics journal.  This is one of the details
that makes me think there is no intention to submit for publication.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Andrew" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:34:42 PM
> 
> 
> If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some
> priors. It's my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to
> bribe a high-ranking scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish
> people, so as far as bribing a high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm
> going to say "not very likely" :). That takes care of #1.

You wants your Bayesian, we got 'em :

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Axil Axil]

Joe Hughes said:

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these
tests make some of those theories less plausible,


Axil asks:

What are your reasons for thinking this way?


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Joe Hughes  wrote:

> Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
> First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were
> supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a
> three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is
> it practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to
> be able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and
> this is just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his
> system? Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might
> add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned
> about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm
> hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide
> something and not prepared purposefully like that.
>
> Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his
> progress in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to
> begin sharing with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his
> part?
>
> Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these
> tests make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to
> read his comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here.
>
>
>
> Andrew  wrote:
>
> The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna
> resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around
> in the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the
> input side is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box
> there - the waveform generator - that's off limits.
>
> Andrew
>
> ----- Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
> reality.
>
> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Andrew 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>
> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they
> were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
> create spot heating of the test device.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

If we're going all Bayesian on this, we'd need to calculate some priors. It's 
my impression that generally speaking it's not easy to bribe a high-ranking 
scientist, and not easy to bribe Swedish people, so as far as bribing a 
high-ranking Swedish scientist, I'm going to say "not very likely" :). That 
takes care of #1.

Rossi did not have a direct hand in this testing, but indirectly he did, via 
his pal Professor Levi, who was on-site at Rossi's facility where the testing 
was performed. There were some off-limit constraints on the operation of the 
tests. What precisely these were is not entirely clear. So #2 should read 
"Rossi and close associates" really. 

#3 is ridiculous I think. I don't see much evidence of incompetency in general.

#5 might be "Aliens/The Illuminati/The Secret Government made him do it" but I 
didn't say that. And never would, actually.

I think it's between #2 (modified) and #4.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:


I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are 
too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting harder 
to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax in science 
history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and they'd have to 
keep quiet.


  Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities:
1.. Rossi and the "third-party" testers are in cahoots, and we have been 
punked. 
2.. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick 
and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper.
3.. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was 
seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP <1, and the 
observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed. 
4.. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP.
  Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each of 
these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people 
involved in the testing?  For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a 
fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned?  It seems to me that 
(1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although not as 
much as (1).


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are
> too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting
> harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax
> in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and
> they'd have to keep quiet.
>

Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities:

   1. Rossi and the "third-party" testers are in cahoots, and we have been
   punked.
   2. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick
   and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper.
   3. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was
   seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP <1, and the
   observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed.
   4. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP.

Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each
of these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people
involved in the testing?  For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a
fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned?  It seems to me
that (1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although
not as much as (1).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Joe,

As time advances Rossi is improving his design.  He has made marvelous progress 
during the last couple of years and I hope that we can convince him to begin 
production of a useful device soon.  It is reasonable to assume that the drive 
system can be of a single phase which is less complicated to implement than a 
three phase one.  He may have determined that it will be easier to supply the 
drive requirements for a number of connected modules in this new configuration 
and that might be the reason for the change.  We will have to wait for that 
information.

I suspect that the final system that holds Rossi's ECATs will have a coolant 
flowing to remove the internally generated heat instead of radiating it as for 
this test.  A coating may not be required for the normal operation but must be 
used for this test to keep operation within reasonable limits.  His decision to 
allow this test no doubt forces him to do things that he does not do in the 
final product.  An example would be the temperature of the outer surface which 
will be held to around 300 C in his system but in this test is much hotter.  
This temperature variation will have a large impact upon stable operation with 
drive further complicating these tests.

It is about time for him to allow the third party testing!  The good news is 
that this suggests that he feels that his design is close to final.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Joe Hughes 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
First,  they both utilized completely different power sources that were 
supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a 
three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it 
practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be 
able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is 
just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, 
Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their 
something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 
'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven 
paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully 
like that. 

Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress 
in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing 
with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part?

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests 
make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his 
comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. 



Andrew  wrote:


The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
You definitely should drop any reference   to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face   when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This   is far outside the realm of reality.
  
 
  
The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can   be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly   
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
  
 
  
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
    
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l     
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Joe Hughes" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:45:55 PM
> 
> Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
>  Second, Rossi
> is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their
> something the first test showed that he was concerned about which
> caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm
> hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide
> something and not prepared purposefully like that.

He knew in advance that they were going to do radiometric calorimetry, and he 
knew what temperature range they were going to use. So he painted it with an 
appropriate substance to have a high emitivity (or whatever).

The first four tests-- two described by Penon,  plus the November and December 
tests -- were all high temperature, so they were all painted the same.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Andrew" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:07:19 PM
> Dave,
> 
> Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the
> mutant and ill-tempered sea bass :)
> 
> I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day
> has progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with
> more open questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded
> but strongly analytic too.
> I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and
> neither is it 100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is
> uncomfortable, but at least a path to the resolution of open issues
> appears to exist. I can't say fairer than that. If I have an agenda,
> I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing to work!
> 
> Best, Andrew

Although it would be wonderful if every experiment checked for everything, but 
in the series of tests (or demonstrations as the wiki police call them), almost 
every possible fake has been checked in at least ONE experiment.

So in a sense the elimination of fakes is cumulative. In the very first test 
they weren't allowed to look into the control bx. In later tests they were, and 
no we seem to be back to secret. (They should at least have measured and/or 
weighed it).

For another example, look at my experiment/equipment table :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table_v4.php

In the April 19 test they DID check for RF : Bianchini checked for 
electromagnetic fields from 5 Hz to 3 GHz.

With the exception of two cases, the testers were allowed and encouraged to 
bring their own equipment, or they were free to borrow Rossi's, and to do a 
basic calibration. (eg weighing the fat-cat they used a bathroom scale, and 
checked it by having two people check their weights. Probably good enough to 10 
/ 180 lbs, and establishes that it's moving freely)

The two excepted cases are : 

a) No SPECTRAL radiation detectors
b) For the heat-exchanger test Rossi pre-fixed the thermocouples and didn't 
allow testers to bring their own.
   (A fatal error to that experiment  --- and with the plumber and his toolbag 
-- which Krivit scorned -- 
could have been done in half an hour).

So for any particular test Rossi has to guess WHICH fake he can use. "My gosh 
-- they're sweeping for RF fields, so I'll have to turn THAT off. Just as well 
I've still got the spot laser rigged up!" ... "Oh dear, they're going to 
measure the current on ALL the leads, so I've got to us the " etc etc.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Joe Hughes]

Two things that confuse me about the two tests.
First,  they both utilized completely different power sources that were 
supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a 
three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it 
practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be 
able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is 
just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, 
Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their 
something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 
'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven 
paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully 
like that. 

Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress 
in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing 
with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part?

Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests 
make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his 
comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. 



Andrew  wrote:

>The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
>resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
>the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
>is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
>waveform generator - that's off limits.
>
>Andrew
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: David Roberson 
>  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>  You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.
>
>  The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
>  Dave
>  -----Original Message-
>  From: Andrew 
>  To: vortex-l 
>  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
>  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
>
>  If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
>  Andrew
>    - Original Message - 
>From: David Roberson 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
> were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
>Dave
>-Original Message-
>From: Terry Blanton 
>To: vortex-l 
>Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>
>Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
>Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
>Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
>create spot heating of the test device.
>
>:-)
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Andrew,

That is all that anyone can ask of you.  Keep an open mind and hopefully you 
will eventually find the truth.  It appears that there will always be questions 
to answer and it is good to resolve as many as possible.  The scientists that 
performed these experiments are high caliber and would most likely want to be 
extremely careful about any announcements of this magnitude.  Put yourself in 
their shoes and you might find that you hesitate to deliver news that would 
ruin your reputation if shown false.

I have faith in their ability and have also been following Rossi for a couple 
of years.  During this time I have seen him make statements that fall into 
place when measured against a model that I constructed earlier to understand 
how a device that generates a lot of heat can be controlled by much less heat.  
Initially, I thought that this could not be true, but my model convinces me 
otherwise.

It is in our collective best interest to get this right and you can be 
confident that there are many following this list that will ensure that any 
tricks are uncovered as soon as possible.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



Dave,
 
Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and 
ill-tempered sea bass :)
 
I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has 
progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open 
questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic 
too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that 
isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is.
 
I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 
100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a 
path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than 
that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing 
to work!
 
Best, Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
The ECAT is made of metal if I recall   correctly which would not allow RF to 
penetrate to activate the resistor   antennas.  Some might be able to follow 
the wiring into the device, but   the level would have to be quite large which 
would most likely demolish the   instrument readings.
  
 
  
Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that   
absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works?  If so, I can understand   why 
you are stretching so far.  Could you be convinced that Rossi   actually has a 
working device?
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna   
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in   
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side  
 is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the   
waveform generator - that's off limits.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
    
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of 
reality.

 

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l     
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

 

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

 

Andrew

  
-   Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 
      
Sent:       Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
  


  
And, of course, the reason that they   misread the instruments was that 
they were all blinded by the high power   IR.  Give me a break.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To:       vortex-l 
Sent: 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

They tested a dummy device, that is, an empty reactor, which showed a
supposedly correct IR emission. The input was the same.


2013/5/21 Andrew 

> **
> Daniel,
>
> I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty
> reactor.  If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply
> or the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm
> missing here.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Daniel Rocha 
> *To:* John Milstone 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input
> when they compared with the empty reactor.
>
>
> 2013/5/21 Andrew 
>
>> **
>> I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is
>> not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of
>> the power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are
>> 40 dB down at 200 Hz
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>>
>>  Andrew  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
>>> obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant.
>> They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form
>> generator. Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire
>> system. It does not matter what the power supplies did.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Daniel,

I'm misunderstanding this reference of yours to the control with the empty 
reactor.  If there's a gizmo, then I assume it's either in the power supply or 
the waveform generator. I suspect you're making a serious point that I'm 
missing here.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input when 
they compared with the empty reactor. 



  2013/5/21 Andrew 

I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. 
If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power 
is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 
200 Hz

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote: 

Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the 
obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.


  I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. 
They measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. 
Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not 
matter what the power supplies did.


  - Jed







  -- 
  Daniel Rocha - RJ
  danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Dave,

Good call on the metal screening. I'll tell Harry to call off the mutant and 
ill-tempered sea bass :)

I started out this morning very gung-ho about it all, and as the day has 
progressed, and I read more peripheral material, I ended up with more open 
questions than answers. I think of myself as open-minded but strongly analytic 
too. I have been running with the Woodward crowd for over 15 years, and if that 
isn't fringe and speculative physics, I don't know what is.

I couldn't put a number on how convinced I am. It's not 0% and neither is it 
100%. Let's say I'm 50/50 for now. The fence is uncomfortable, but at least a 
path to the resolution of open issues appears to exist. I can't say fairer than 
that. If I have an agenda, I'd describe it as the fervent desire for this thing 
to work!

Best, Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to 
penetrate to activate the resistor antennas.  Some might be able to follow the 
wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would 
most likely demolish the instrument readings.

  Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that 
absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works?  If so, I can understand why 
you are stretching so far.  Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a 
working device?

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.

  Andrew
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you 
imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path 
radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
    To: vortex-l 
    Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
      To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
      Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that 
they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Terry Blanton 
      To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Daniel Rocha]

But that would mean another device, a circuit, which modified the input
when they compared with the empty reactor.


2013/5/21 Andrew 

> **
> I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not.
> If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the
> power is being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40
> dB down at 200 Hz
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Andrew  wrote:
>
>
>>  Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
>> obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
>> it.
>>
>
> I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They
> measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator.
> Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does
> not matter what the power supplies did.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

The ECAT is made of metal if I recall correctly which would not allow RF to 
penetrate to activate the resistor antennas.  Some might be able to follow the 
wiring into the device, but the level would have to be quite large which would 
most likely demolish the instrument readings.

Andrew, are you approaching this from the point of view of a skeptic that 
absolutely does not believe that the ECAT works?  If so, I can understand why 
you are stretching so far.  Could you be convinced that Rossi actually has a 
working device?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
You definitely should drop any reference   to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face   when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This   is far outside the realm of reality.
  
 
  
The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can   be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly   
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
  
 
  
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: David Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
    
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue,     May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I'm not getting anything like the buzz I experienced in 1989 on 
sci.physics.fusion, I must say. I suspect it's because I'm older!

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:


I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?


  Of course. I am sure we would all be interested.


I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems 
time for another reading.


  I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up 
concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was before 
we had the Internet.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

It would be really cool if the lasers are mounted on sharks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
> reality.
>
> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Andrew 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>
> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
> they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
> Dave
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
> create spot heating of the test device.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

I agree with Jed's advice Andrew.  This is an important issue which perhaps you 
should pursue.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Andrew  wrote:



I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), 



Not at all.


 

but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and 
the majority . . .



I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to 
eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a 
potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the 
problem.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna 
resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in 
the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side 
is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the 
waveform generator - that's off limits.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.

  The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be 
set aside with the proper scrutiny.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly 
coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

  If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

  Andrew
- Original Message - 
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
    Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?
>

Of course. I am sure we would all be interested.


>

> I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems
> time for another reading.
>

I find I must read a paper like this several time, and I have to look up
concepts I am unfamiliar with. It sure is easier to do that than it was
before we had the Internet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you imagine 
the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path radiation 
caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of reality.

The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be set 
aside with the proper scrutiny.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced 
into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 
 
If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
 
Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
And, of course, the reason that they   misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power   IR.  Give me a break.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l   
Sent:   Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem

  
Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I think you're right. Would you be interested in their response?

I have said several times that I've read the paper. Nevertheless, it seems time 
for another reading. 

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:


I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), 


  Not at all.



but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz 
and the majority . . .


  I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to 
eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a 
potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the 
problem.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Andrew,

Don't you think that it would be unusual for them to specifically mention that 
they carefully inspected the waveforms to ensure that there was no fraud 
attempt?  The assumption is that Rossi and others are not trying to influence 
the test.  They discussed the power measured and had they found a problem I am 
sure it would have been mentioned.

It would be more productive for you to look up the specifications for the 
instrumentation used for the test and to see if you find that they are not 
accurate when RF or DC is sent through them.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



Dave,
 
That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul 
play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to 
suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency 
spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions 
than answers.
 
Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious 
question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.
 
Best, Andrew
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
Andrew,
  
 
  
I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and   qualified 
scientists would fall for a power input trick.  They had many   days to uncover 
anything of that nature.
  
 
  
Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by   them to 
see if this were even the least bit likely?
  
 
  
It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion   and 
set aside your concerns.
  
 
  
Dave
  
  
  
-Original   Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

  
  
  
It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
  
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
  
that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of   the supply 
box. You might think that this immediately eliminates   the "battery hoax" 
theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment   would be 
insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could   
certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes,  
 to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the   
device.
  
 
  
I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe   it 
(let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's   
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a  
 metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
  end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls   
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.
  
 
  
Best, Andrew Palfreyman
  
 
  

- Original Message - 

From: Andrew 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
    
Sent:     Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - 
just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; 
you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". 
Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to 
be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some 
hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam
 may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved   
  here, and we are all grown-ups.

 

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run 
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long 
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle
 as the lasers, but just a different frequency.

 

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

 

Andrew

  
-   Original Message - 
  
From:   Andrew       
      
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent:   Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
  
Subject:   Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
  


  
A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's   "small". 
  
 
  
A battery would need to supply (say, conserv

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am),
>

Not at all.



> but irrelevant it is not. If the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz
> and the majority . . .
>

I suggest you read the paper and find out if it has enough information to
eliminate this possibility. If it does not, write a paper describing a
potential problem. Send it to the authors, and see if they checked for the
problem.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

I don't know if you are an EE in any way (I am), but irrelevant it is not. If 
the measurement probes only work up to 60 Hz and the majority of the power is 
being pumped at 200 Hz (arbitrary numbers), and the probes are 40 dB down at 
200 Hz

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:

Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the 
obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.


  I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They 
measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator. 
Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does not 
matter what the power supplies did.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly coerced 
into producing something that's not a spot, you know. 

If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they 
were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Terry Blanton 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:

**
> This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter
> probes and their frequency response?
>

No, I do not know enough about that to comment. I will leave that to others.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:


> Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the
> obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at
> it.
>

I do not think they were allowed to look at it, but it is irrelevant. They
measured the power going into the power supplies and wave form generator.
Output power far exceeded all input power into the entire system. It does
not matter what the power supplies did.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

Dave,

That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul 
play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to 
suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency 
spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions 
than answers.

Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious 
question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it.

Best, Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew,

  I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified 
scientists would fall for a power input trick.  They had many days to uncover 
anything of that nature.

  Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to 
see if this were even the least bit likely?

  It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and 
set aside your concerns.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrew 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
  
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
  that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply 
box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" 
theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be 
insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly 
be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using 
frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device.

  I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it 
(let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's 
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a 
metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls 
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.

  Best, Andrew Palfreyman

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
    Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - 
just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". Rossi is 
not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared 
to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby 
sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful 
to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all 
grown-ups.

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run 
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long 
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as 
the lasers, but just a different frequency.

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

Andrew
  - Original Message ----- 
  From: Andrew 
      To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

  A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, 
or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I 
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

  Andrew


  - Original Message ----- 
    From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Andrew  wrote:



  You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind 
to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with 
additional power.


What sort of internal power source?


A generator? That would noisy and obvious.


A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has 
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right.


A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 
800 W. They would see it.


Do you have anything else in mind?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they were 
all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.

Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.

Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
create spot heating of the test device.

:-)


 

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[David Roberson]

Andrew,

I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified 
scientists would fall for a power input trick.  They had many days to uncover 
anything of that nature.

Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to 
see if this were even the least bit likely?

It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set 
aside your concerns.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Andrew 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem



It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown 
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. 
You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" theory, but 
it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to 
anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in 
there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies 
other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device.
 
I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let 
alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's 
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a 
metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on 
end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls 
stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.
 
Best, Andrew Palfreyman
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   Andrew 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a   gem
  


  
I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician -   just 
recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi;   you 
don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye".   Rossi 
is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be   
prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly   
crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be   
distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here,   
and we are all grown-ups.
  
 
  
Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run   
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long   
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle   
as the lasers, but just a different frequency.
  
 
  
And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further   
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of   
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.
  
 
  
Andrew
  

- Original Message - 

From: Andrew 
    
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
    
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem




A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, 
or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of 
battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make 
the call.

 

Andrew

 

 

- Original Message - 

  
From:   Jed   Rothwell 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper   is a gem
  


Andrew  wrote:
  

  


You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind 
to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the 
device with additional power.

  


  
What sort of internal power source?
  


  
A generator? That would noisy and obvious.
  


  
A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has   
developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own   right.
  


  
A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500   to 
800 W. They would see it.
  


  
Do you have anything else in mind?
  


  
- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

This is good to know. Can you specifically talk about the clamp-on ammeter 
probes and their frequency response? What is your understanding here? For 
example, if there exists a HF power component, could it be missed by using 
these clamp-on probes?

I have to ask these questions because the paper does not address them.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


  Andrew  wrote:

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further 
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of 
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.


  I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing about 
cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could pull of a 
hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of fooling 
people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras.


  I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a sleight 
of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic. Not an 
experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything about. They 
have no training in this. They did not use instruments.


  As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult than 
finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as subtle as 
the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These researchers 
have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors.


  The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform 
and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not 
discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in the 
last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has gone 
wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what they are 
for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than they have to 
think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the screen and confirm 
that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple reading.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew  wrote:


> And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further
> that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of
> all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.
>

I have corresponded with Randi. He does not understand the first thing
about cold fusion or experimental science. He has no idea how anyone could
pull of a hoax of this nature, any more than Yugo does. This is not case of
fooling people. You have to fool instruments and video cameras.

I am sick of hearing about Geller. He fooled scientists when he did a
sleight of hand trick. That was him doing his own business -- stage magic.
Not an experiment, and not something that scientists would know anything
about. They have no training in this. They did not use instruments.

As I have said before, finding experimental errors is FAR more difficult
than finding deliberate fraud. There is no method of fraud one-tenth as
subtle as the problems Mother Nature throws at you in an experiment. These
researchers have spent a lifetime teasing out experimental errors.

The people who make power analyzers have dealt with every possible waveform
and condition. They know what electricity can and cannot do. Rossi has not
discovered some condition that the instrument manufacturers never seen in
the last 140 years. Everything that can go wrong with electric power has
gone wrong. The instruments are designed to find problems. That is what
they are for. The professors do not have to think about this any more than
they have to think about emissivity. They just fill in the data on the
screen and confirm that the computed temperature matches the thermocouple
reading.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Andrew  wrote:
> The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating
> scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy

You might not be, but others are.  I understand your point about
fooling scientists; however, I would refrain from such speculation
without evidence.

Advice.  Take or leave it.

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Andrew]

The thing about a successful hoax, Terry, is that it is the investigating 
scientists who are fooled. Nobody is suggesting the sort of grand conspiracy 
you mention. Unfortunately, the door is left wide open for speculations of 
bamboozlement, because precautions against them are not discussed in the paper. 
It would have behoved the august scientists of Sweden and Italy to have closed 
the door on such possibilities, both in terms of convincing themselves, and 
proclaiming such explicitly in their paper. Perhaps good taste forbad them from 
appearing to be exercising "bad manners" towards their host and his apparatus. 
Or perhaps the possibility that they were being taken for a ride simply did not 
occur to them at a level of sophistication sufficient to warrant closer 
inspection. We cannot know unless we interview them personally. I note your 
temerity about this topic.

Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem


> Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor
> their institutions are implicit in a hoax.
> 
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>> What do you think of my hoax theories?
>>
>> Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself "Where is the benefit?"
>

RE: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Andrew,

This isn't about believe or disbelieve. black or white.  Any good scientist
uses a 'sliding scale', and as more data comes in, that scale is adjusted as
to whether a given phenomenon or claim has gained in credibility, or
diminished.  For me, this test has pushed that sliding scale a little
further to the credible scale. that's all. Time will sort this out, and I
don't think we'll have to wait too much longer.

 

RE: your comments about possible input power trickery.

I believe they determined that the power consumed by the Control Box was (on
pg 18):

"From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was
approximately = 110-120  W."

 

This was done during the 'dummy' test.  In addition, they ran the control
box CONTINUOUSLY during the dummy test, not with the 65/35 (Off/ON) duty
cycle used in loaded reactor runs.  THUS, the power consumption of the
control box during those runs was likely 1/3 the above estimates.  In fact,
the 'conservative' estimates they used in the fueled reactor runs did NOT
subtract out the control box power, meaning they assumed ALL electrical
power measured at the wall plug went into the reactor, and none into the
control box.  That is the most conservative way to do the calcs as far as
the input power is concerned.

 

PS: I remember your last name from the days of sci.physics.fusion, and all
the activity on that forum starting with P&F's 1989 announcement. I think I
still have some printouts of some of the discussions.

 

-Mark

 

From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown
<http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently
-verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas>  

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-
verified-has-1-times-the-energy-density-of-gas

that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply
box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax"
theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be
insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could
certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter
notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to
the device.

 

I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it
(let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's
demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in
a metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for
weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the
controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him.

 

Best, Andrew Palfreyman

 

- Original Message ----- 

From: Andrew <mailto:andrew...@att.net>  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician -
just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi;
you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye".
Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to
be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some
hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam
may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved
here, and we are all grown-ups.

 

Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run
across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long
"resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle
as the lasers, but just a different frequency.

 

And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further
that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of
all. Just ask Geller and Taylor.

 

Andrew

----- Original Message - 

From: Andrew <mailto:andrew...@att.net>  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

 

A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". 

 

A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or
200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I
agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call.

 

Andrew

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM

Subj

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Terry Blanton]

Personally, I would avoid any implication that these scientists nor
their institutions are implicit in a hoax.

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> What do you think of my hoax theories?
>
> Well, when I look for a hoax, I also ask myself "Where is the benefit?"