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.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<> for Windows 10

From: Adrian Ashfield <>
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.

-----Original Message-----
From: JonesBeene <>
To: vortex-l <>
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.

Reply via email to