I am not sure about the size of E-Cat's "stomach", but the foil covered animal from janurary appears to be slightly longer from nose to tail than the march/april animal.
Harry > >From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:38:29 PM >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? > > >Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to >distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions – rather >than >doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. > >There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell >appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw – and it >simply >does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no >longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no >evidence of a larger device. > > >Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. > >The “50 CC” is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the >images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is >every ‘logical’ reason to suspect, given Rossi’s abundant history of >disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for >why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi’s gross measurement >errors >in the ‘Focardi tribute’ (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a >further >error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). > >It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry >– >below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us >something closer to the truth – but as Mats admits, they are not there yet > >Jones > > > >From:Jed Rothwell > >If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek >inside the original device, back in January > >1. It was not a "quick peek." Who told you it was quick? > >2. Others saw it too. > >3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or >April? The size does not change with the season. > >4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L >and >one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. > >Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person >has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or >why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. > >- Jed >
