Dave, That would be great if they joined in. It's not that I think there was foul play so much as, going by what's been written in the paper, there's nothing to suggest that they guarded against it. So, for example, there's no frequency spectrum published on the input power feed. The paper raises more questions than answers.
Rossi has stated that the input waveform is proprietary. Therefore the obvious question is whether these researchers were even allowed to look at it. Best, Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew, I would be very surprised to find that these highly educated and qualified scientists would fall for a power input trick. They had many days to uncover anything of that nature. Has anyone checked into the specifications of the instruments used by them to see if this were even the least bit likely? It would be great if some of these scientists would join the discussion and set aside your concerns. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long "resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
