I think Jones was too kind. It was not a demo. It was three hours of dithering. 
 Mats should be embarrassed by the sound control if nothing else.

I wondered what Rossi's trick would be this time. It was acting like a person 
who has no clue what he is trying to accomplish.

I guess this makes me a 'pathoskeptic'.

I think A.R. owes all of us three hours for the amateur hours he presented to 
us.  The Swedish Academy has little to be proud of here.

From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 1:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
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 <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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