An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over a wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat (could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in front). Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars.
And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies. Clamp ammeters are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages across all the wires. The meter in question can measure harmonic distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely be invisible to the meter. It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp ammeters can. http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat&_listpos=12 Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely to have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they probably couldn't during the test). And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just as for the 3 phase power supply. Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues, however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks. I am on balance fairly convinced, but like many I harbour doubts about Rossi based on his dodgy history and apparent willingness to mislead at times. It needs rigorous (skeptical) testing to really get doubters onside. On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > :-) > > >
