But, Rich, the input power was measured -- /not/ by Rossi -- and the
setup was apparently done by the other profs, /not/ by Rossi himself.

The power supply and the other paraphernalia (aside from the reactor)
were apparently provided by various other profs, /not/ by Rossi.

So unless you're assuming a conspiracy of at least two or three of the
presenters, scenarios which require hollow legs in the table, special
wiring to the outlet, phony power supply leads, and so forth just will
not fly.



On 01/18/2011 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> A hidden factor of 4 increase in electric power input to a resistive
> heater is possible: Rich Murray 2011.01.18
>
> 1. Use four power input wires, one hidden from the floor up through
> the inside of each of the four table legs -- in fact table legs could
> conceal as many as 4 -- 9 wires each -- has anyone tried moving the
> table?
>
> 2. A single thin wire can supply power at lower current and higher
> voltage, as a thin layer of insulating plastic can insulate 880 AC
> volts, 4 X 220 volts, and 1/4 the current at 220 volts, as Er = V**2 X
> I = 4**2 X 1/4 = 16 X 1/4 = 4 ...,ie, 4X more energy.
>
> Such an additional thin wire, 1/2 the diameter (1/4 the area) of a 220
> volt wire, could be easily hidden within a regular 3 wire extension
> cord, for instance by being disguised as the third "ground" wire -- or
> such extra wires may be in power cables made for special purposes,
> where some device needs a high voltage feed in addition to 240 volt
> AC.
>
> 3. Gold wires carry much more power than Cu wires...
>
> Strict testing might necessitate bringing in a standard propane gas
> motor electric generator, or a special power input box to monitor the
> actual power outputs from the 3-prong plug, with attention to
> capability to detect current flows from hidden wires of metal or
> conducting plastic, glass, films, or paint.
>
> Also, H2 gas and other gas or liquid fluids could be fed into the
> device via tubes hidden in the H2 and H20 input and exit tubes.
>
> The reported gamma rays are, however, possibly definite evidence of
> nuclear reactions.
>
> So, there are many feasible ways for fraud to elude the usual scrutiny
> of academic scientists -- and these are ideas from an unskilled
> layman...
>
> Rich Murray  505-819-7388  rmfor...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> And as to "not being convinced by anything" ... as long as the conclusions
>>> are based on precise heat measurements there is room for doubt.
>>>       
>> These conclusions are based on somewhat imprecise measurements, and you can
>> be just as certain with no measurements at all. Just look at the thing. You
>> see water going in at about a liter every three minutes, steam coming out,
>> and only a thin, ordinary wire going to the power supplies. It would be
>> physically impossible for that wire to supply the electricity needed to
>> vaporize that much water. Impossible by a wide margin; at least a factor of
>> 4. You don't even need to see the power meter or thermometers to be sure of
>> this.
>>
>>
>>     
>>>  Once the loop is closed there is no more room for doubt.
>>>       
>> As far as I am concerned, this is first principle proof, and it is as
>> convincing as a self sustaining machine, or as Fleischmann's boil-off video.
>> Unless there are camera tricks or hidden wires involved this is massive
>> anomalous heat. I do not think there are tricks or hidden wires because the
>> professors involved would notice that, and they would not stand for it. If
>> it were only the inventor, and everything was under his exclusive control, I
>> might suspect a fake, but I would be just as suspicious of a self-sustaining
>> demo under the control of the inventor.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

Reply via email to