Joe Hughes said: Also I always enjoyed reading Dr. Kim's papers on lenr and i think these tests make some of those theories less plausible,
Axil asks: What are your reasons for thinking this way? On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Joe Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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. > > :-) > > >
