Alan, I am unclear of if you think there is incompetence or fraud, which can be suspected?
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > I hate to say it, but I'm leaning to "inconclusive" for the report as a > whole. > > Controls: I don't have any problems with the experimental controls as a > whole, and in particular Rossi's involvement, which was supervised at all > times. There is no chance that secret power was fed to the system. > > Equipment structure: we know nothing about the internal structure of the > "tube". Where were the heaters? (In the first test they were held in place > by a cylindrical ceramic frame. Here they are just said to be "inside" the > cylinder). This is important, as it might help explain the heating-wire > "shadows" in fig 12. It's apparently so simple that I doubt there are any > major trade secrets. Also, it would have revealed if there was a > "magician" compartment to hold "fake ash". (But "fake" ash wouldn't have > surprised Rossi.) > > Transmutation: the amount of material given for analysis was ridiculously > small -- in the end, a single particle of Nickel "ash" was analyzed, which > might not be representative of the fuel as a whole. > > Input power: since the input to the controller was from a > Rossi-inaccessible AC source, and was checked for DC, I don't think there > are any fake paths. It would have been interesting to see a very wide-band > oscilloscope trace on the heater feeds, just to confirm there's nothing > above the 5Kz (or whatever, 100 harmonics) that the meters monitored. > Similarly, there was no direct measurement of EM fields, but Rossi had no > access to this. Nor, I think, would any "mole" on the team. > > Output power: I'm inclined to agree with Jones Beene > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg98226.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg98253.html and Goat > Man that the translucence of the Alumina cylinder is a major issue, and > that the calculation of output power is questionable. > > All we have to analyze are visible-spectrum photos 12a and 12b -- and we > don't even know when they were taken. In the "cool" half, or the "hot" half > of the test? There certainly appear to be "shadows" of the heating wires. I > presume (but there are no explicit photos) that during the dummy control > run and maybe during the "cool" half, that the wires did not show up as > "glowing" through the alumina. > > In the first report we knew the structure of the coils ... held by a > cog-like ceramic holder, and that there was an outer steel cylinder which > prevented all direct radiation from escaping. The "melting" photos of the > first failed test showed light and dark bands which could be explained by > the different thermal conductivity of the "cogs" and the gaps between them. > > But here we just see "shadows" of spiral wires, which are darker than the > background. The wires themselves are too narrow to show a shadow on the > outer cylinder when lit by a diffuse source on their inside. But with no > knowledge of the structure of the tube we are left with speculation only. > If we postulate that the "active" area is essentially a smaller cylinder > just inside the wires, shining through the outer semi-translucent alumina > cylinder, then we might be able to calculate the output power. But, If > Might .... > > > > > > (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion > hyperion -- Hi, google!) >
