Joe,
A poll of "everyone here" would surprise me if you got 10%
support regarding this method of sneaking power into the reactor. I respect
your skepticism even though I often disagree with your conclusions but I
always make time to read your posts. In this instance I think you have chosen
a poor position to defend. The skin effect of high frequency signals might
couple some small energy to the reactor but you are asking us to accept a
transfer of energy magnitudes higher than is credible for an air core
transformer. While the skeptic does normally enjoy the advantage of demanding
proof when faced with extraordinary claims, you exchanged that privilege with
Jed by making your own extraordinary claim. He is simply enjoying the same
privilege that you normally garner by default.
Regards
Fran
On Thurs Oct 13 Joe Catina said
[snip]How that, in your mind, requires me to test it is beyond everyone
here.[/snip]
From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test
Jed if you can't explain your position you are a fraud. Me building a test
circuit is not going to vindicate you. Lewan hasn't answered queries about the
freq device but most people know that cheap meters cannot follow this well. If
current and voltage aren't in phase its no good. If high freqs distrurb meter
likewise. I'm saying the coicidence is glaring that excess energy is only
produced after this device starts therefore it not measuring power accurately.
How that, in your mind, requires me to test it is beyond everyone here. The
idea here is not to assume that the power measurements are valid. Proove that!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit report on Oct. 6 Rossi test
Joe Catania wrote:
I suggest you accept my treatment was theoretical. Rossi should comply, not me.
Rossi set up two meters, a Digitmaster DM201 and a Mastech MS2102. You are
saying you know a "theoretical" way to fool both of them, simultaneously, with
some sort of external signal generator or electrical waveform. If you are not
willing to do an experiment proving this claim of yours, I think you should at
least explain your theory here. Otherwise, why should anyone believe that you
actually know how to do this?
Rossi has already done a credible measurement of input amperage. I would have
preferred a wattmeter and something like a battery backup, but using two
separate meters does reduce the likelihood of error. I do not know much about
these meters but it seems to me that an external signal generator is unlikely
to affect both of them the same way simultaneously. It seems to me that you are
now making a claim contrary to conventional knowledge, so you should back it up
if you want people to take you seriously. The ball is in your court.
I was being flippant before but I mean that seriously. A skeptical assertion
dismissing evidence does not get a free pass. You have to prove your point just
as Rossi must prove his.
- Jed
