Rossi would have had to design a world class electric fraud plan to anticipate what equipment was going to be used in the test.
He did not know what the test plan was and could not know if this fraud plan would cover every case and equipment configuration. As a test plan developer myself, I would be hard put to come up with a fraud plan that was perfect in every possible case, knowing full well if I failed to pull off the scam plan, the scam I had worked so hard to develop would then be all over and exposed. No, the best solution to the systems design is to insure that the system works. This in itself is very hard to do. Even in scamming, Kiss is important. I would not first melt down a system as a ploy, which is way too complicated of a scam plan, IMHO. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Lynn <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 . . . >> > > You are joking! I have seen lasers strike objects, such as the items in a > cash register checkout line. You can't miss that. It is obvious. We have > all seen it. > > If you got near it or put your hand over it, you would be burned. At > those power levels, if you looked up, you would be permanently blinded. > > This scenario is 100% impossible. > > > >> 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. >> > > Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now explain how you could use these invisible > frequencies to send enough electricity through an ordinary wire to melt > ceramics and 3 mm thick steel, without melting the wire. > > If you can't explain how to do that, you can forget this and all other > hidden electricity hypotheses. > > Keep it simple. Address the big questions and the obviously questions > first. Then tell us about DC and other distortions. > > - Jed > >
