Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express frustration that the poster does not understand the experiment?
Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period. This has nothing to do with its placement. Of course there would be little apparent harm to connect a scope to the same wall plug to which the power input for the E-cat is connected, but if a scope is present anywhere, then it can be used to inadvertently expose a trade secret. Thus - no scope permitted, only power analyzers. To go further than what an o'scope could tell us that a power analyzer could not exposes bias. Not that bias needs exposing, since this entire thread is surely the pinnacle of lame bickering over nothing of importance. Never did Rossi say that DC capable clamps would not be allowed. In fact he would have expected that DC capable clamps could have been used - had he taken the time to reflect on the issue. To think that any scammer risks exposure by rewiring the lab is absurd - since the independent testers were permitted to have a DC capable clamp or power analyzers that could have measured DC, even if this one did not. This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi "must be cheating" - but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws. If Rossi had altered the wiring with DC or RF, it could have been discovered with a permitted instrument, over which AR had no control. Moreover, if Rossi cheated in this way, it could have physically injured the participants (given that skeptics are looking for an extra kilowatt or more of input). Does he risk that? No way! To say that he does risk it - exposes the silliness of this stance, since there is no real motive. If there is a mistake in measurement, it is most likely on the output side, not the input. In short: Get over it! There is NO MODIFICATION OF THE LAB WIRING. Move on to something has a minimum level of credulity! Jones -----Original Message----- From: Rob Dingemans Hi, Duncan Cumming wrote: > Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a > type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. > He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an > oscilloscope because it would reveal a "proprietary waveform". By > keeping tight control over the test conditions, he is able to ensure > that his questionable power measurements are not exposed. By not > allowing inspection of the heater controller, he keeps the diode (or > asymmetrical firing of the Triacs) from public view. Rossi behaves as > if a mundane heater control is super-secret technology - does nobody > else find this strange? I can hardly believe that when you connect a scope to the same wall plug as to which the input for the E-cat is connected that Andrea will not allow this. If my assumption is right that: a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then the AC from the wall plug, b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid, then a low-pass filter (up to ~ 50 Hz) between the wall plug and the E-cat control box should be sufficient for: a: the scope not being able to detect the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid, b: at the same time still be able to detect any possible "strange" waveforms trying to being inserted through the wall plug into the control box of the E-cat, c: and also preventing any "strange" waveforms to be passing through the low-pass filter into the control box of the E-cat :-) . B.t.w. if Andrea is afraid of the proprietary waveform generated in the control box and fed back to the grid from happening he should redesign his control box and include the low-pass filter as a part of the internal circuitry. Kind regards, Rob
