The two reactor power determinations each had their problems.
The input signal to the oscilloscope was not clear to the streamed audience.
The power signal seemed to be a high voltage followed by a variable voltage
across the reactor. It was hard to tell whether the voltage varied around 0
volts are around a fixed bias.
The power determination from the EM spectrum did not work and looked to me to
have been a waste of time. Without good calibration the pretense that the data
taken was significant was just nonsense IMHO.
It did appear that Rossi did not want Matts to get in the frequency of the
power signal. The inference was that the frequency was propriety information.
It would fit with the idea the power applied to the reactor to initiate a heat
generating reaction was not associated with resistive heating but intended to
establish a resonance within the reactor necessary to support the reaction.
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 10:18:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24
I don't agree. The measurements of energy out & in were good enough to
demonstrate the basic characteristics of the QX. That was the purpose of the
demo. I t would be impossible to to do a replicable experiment without giving
the IP away.
The pathosskeptics make much of the crude power pack with 60 W of cooling But I
don't believe that power could be magically transferred to heat the water.
What could Rossi possibly get from such a scam? It's not to get money from the
general public but possibly to interest venture capitalists: they would do
their own due diligence, such as measuring the voltage across the reactor.
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sat, Nov 25, 2017 10:16 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24
Video of demonstration:
Funny that few comments are coming out on this - other than from Mats, who
would benefit if this demo meant anything positive.
In fact, it is not a demo in any real sense … it is disappointing theatre to
all but the Rossi-flock. In no way does this salvage Rossi’s credibility with
scientists, nor that of Levi and the Swedes, who still look like dupes who
should, but will not, retract their egregious errors at Lugano.
There is no useful information being supplied which can lead to verification or
replication. Voltage appears to have been estimated from resistance… with
pulsed power, that is a no-no and thus the input could have been hundreds of
times greater than suggested. Why not measure input power at the plug and
include the cooling power since it is required?
Given Rossi’s three decade long record of fraud and deceit as a backdrop –
either independent replication or a commercial product will be the only thing
that can help.
So far, this is little more than a crude repeat of the past 6 years except now
there is even less relevant information to use in replication than with the
past failures. Few will waste their time.