I am not trying to assert anything as fact. I am merely pointing out
that a simple diode inside the controller box (to which access was
forbidden by Rossi) COULD HAVE given the observed results. I am NOT
saying that it, in fact, did, merely speculating that it could have.
For any scientific experiment, the onus is on the experimenters to
produce the result. The best way to do this is to provide sufficient
information for others to replicate the experiment.
Duncan
On 5/26/2013 5:07 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Perhaps you should build one of these scam machines and prove that it
will work without being detected. That would be the best way to show
that it is possible. Why should we accept this assertion as fact any
more than believing that the testers missed finding the scam?
We can spend an equal amount of time knocking down any theory that is
put forth as others can spend assuming they are real.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Cumming <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:59 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes power measurments
"The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC
voltage on all the four lines"
This turns out not to be the case. You could also draw DC current
through any of the lines, which current would not register on the
clamps. The simplest way to do this would be just to use a diode in
series with the heating element.
Since power = current x voltage x pf, it is NOT necessary to change the
voltage in order to change the power.
Duncan
On 5/26/2013 2:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> A Swedish correspondent sent me this link:
>
>http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&sid=5450c28dab532569dee72f88a43a56f0&start=330
>
> This is a discussion in Swedish, which Google does a good job
> translating. Before you translate it, you will see that in the middle
> of it is a message from one of the authors, Torbjörn Hartman, in
> English. Here it is, with a few typos corrected.
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the
> current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the
> voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective
> ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only
> possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on
> all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an
> other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden
> connections when we were there. The control box had no connections
> through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were
> accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was
> only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little
> socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected
> with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to
> the wood of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal
> sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the
> interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it). Of course, if the
> white little socket was rigged inside and the metal screws was long
> enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet
> underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do
> not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables
> connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture
> of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of
> normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the
> powermeter and of the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day
> of the connectors and cables to the powermeter in case anyone would
> tamper with them when we were out.
>
> I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so
> I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car
> battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can
> not be much.
>
> All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with
> our measurements but there can still be things that we "didn't think
> of" and that is the reason why we only can claim "indications of" and
> not "proof of" anomalous heat production. We must have more control
> over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.
>
> Best regards,
> Torbjörn
>
> END QUOTE
>
> - Jed
>
