Two things that confuse me about the two tests. First, they both utilized completely different power sources that were supposedly part of his trade secret. the supply during the first test was a three phase supply but the second one was a single phase output supply. Is it practical that for the power to be so critical to this device for him to be able to switch power inputs so easily or is the power not important and this is just Rossi trying to distract folks from the real magic in his system? Second, Rossi is incredibly paranoid and for good reason i might add, so was their something the first test showed that he was concerned about which caused him to 'paint' the second ecat to hide something? I'm hypothesizing that the uneven paint job was an afterthought to hide something and not prepared purposefully like that.
Also why did he agree to the test now? Is he comfortable enough in his progress in the design and with his partners now that he is willing to begin sharing with others or is it some form of misdirection play on his part? Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests make some of those theories less plausible, however would love to read his comments on the tests. i don't believe he has ever posted on here. Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: >The remaining "output hoax" possibility is beamed RF into the "antenna >resistors". Now, I do realise that this entails Prof. Levi crawling around in >the rafters like Quasimodo...LOL. No, I am inclined to say that the input side >is where attention needs to be focussed. There's a black box there - the >waveform generator - that's off limits. > >Andrew > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Roberson > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:47 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem > > > You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you > imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path > radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of reality. > > The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be > set aside with the proper scrutiny. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem > > > Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly > coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. > > If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. > > Andrew > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Roberson > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem > > > And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that they > were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> > 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 > > >Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. > >Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. > >Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would >create spot heating of the test device. > >:-) >
