On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** >> So this is an "independent test" in your book, when you freely >> acknowledge that Levi and Rossi have been friends and colleagues for a long >> time? >> > > It is what it is. Call it independent, semi-independent, or a friendly > visit. You can read the details in the report and judge for yourself. Some > of the other participants have no connection to Rossi. That does not > prevent them from knowing how to use instruments or comparing the IR camera > readout to a thermocouple. > But according to Essen, it did prevent them from using an oscilloscope, since that was up to Levi. > Levi DID NOT constrain that. You made that up! It is nonsense. I have been > in contact with these researchers. They made it abundantly clear that > neither Rossi nor Levi constrained them in any way. They agreed this was a > reasonable set of instruments. > > It's a remarkable coincidence that the PCE-830 is the same device that Rossi used last fall for his hot-cat experiments. And for Essen to say that the use of a scope depends on Levi sounds like a constraint to me. > They are of the opinion that Rossi and Levi have no magical ability to > change the readout of a digital ammeter or an IR camera. I agree. > > > There's nothing magic about fooling a device like the PCE-830 with its very small frequency range. Those videos by Tinsel Koala show how both clamp-on and in-line ammeters can be fooled to read zero at the input, while providing full power at the load. > No such dicta occurred. Rossi had no say in the matter. He did not know > what meters they would bring, and he has no idea what they will bring next > time. > That seems inconsistent with the fact that they used same meter Rossi used last fall. > No one knows. That has not been decided yet. The whole point to doing > multiple tests is to improve the instruments and techniques. > Measure the input with a scope. Use an input that does not have multiple kW capacity. > Your saying "perhaps" does not make something true, or even likely. > > > No, but alternatives should be all but excluded to accept a claim like this. And furthermore, it should be checkable by anyone skilled in the art. I doubt it will be taken seriously until that is possible.
