Surely the control box is an integral part of the Rossi system under test? Why then insist on internal sub-system measurements? Why not analyse the Rossi system cleanly by just considering external inputs and outputs without regard to internals? After all, an engineer doesn't break open an unknown transistor or integrated circuit to determine its characteristics.
Charles From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] Sent: 29 May 2013 01:59 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question NO, NO, NO. The cable I'm referring to, which I've described three times now, os the other one - the one between the control box and the device. Good Grief. ----- Original Message ----- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <mailto:zeropo...@charter.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:36 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question I think there is some confusion on the issue of cables, what cables, and 'bringing your own cables' and I want to make sure we are all on the same page. correct any misunderstandings in the following so we all understand the details and importance of each. First, the cable Andrew is referring to is the one from the AC wall plug to the control box. The REASON why Andrew and others are asking if Rossi would allow the scientists to use their own AC power cable is because of the diagram on this page which is immediately following the pie chart of "Natural Nickel Composition": http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-peo ple-are-still-falling-for-it/ The diagram is by Peter Thieberger, a particle physicist. It shows how some 'rewiring ' of a power cable can be done so that it will register NO current on any meters monitoring the separate wires of the power cable. I do not know if this scenario is one that the test team thought about, but if someone can present them with the diagram and find out if their measurements can eliminate this possibility, that'd be great. If they did not account for this scenario, then we need to make sure they are aware of it so the next test can eliminate this possibility of fraud. Second, when someone (Rossi) said, ". they could bring their own cables.", I got the impression that this was only referring to the cables which attach the measurement instruments to the system (e.g., the cables from the Power Analyzer to the AC power cable), NOT the AC power cable. So let's not get confused as to 'what cables' are being referred to. -Mark Iverson From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: The cable is what connects the control box to the device. It appears from the report that they did not examine it for anomalies. They did not examine it. That would reveal trade secrets, as noted in the report. So, are the researchers free to replace it with one of their own, or not? Of course not. They do not even have the specs for it. What happens in the cable and controller is irrelevant to the energy balance. Despite the discussions here, there is no way what occurs in the controller box or the cable can "steal" electricity without the meters detecting it. That would violate the conservation of energy. When electric power is consumed, either the amperage or the voltage must rise. You might hide input power from some types of meter by changing the output from the electric plug. However, there has been a great of nonsense about that here, as well. You can't do that merely by raising voltage. When voltage exceeds the meter's limits, the meter does not ignore that. It displays a message such as "EEEE" or "OUT OF RANGE." The March dummy calibration run, according to the report, involved placing voltage probes across the device while the control box was switched on in non-pulsed mode. You are right. It says: "Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W." In this case they were using the coils as joule heaters in a conventional step-by-step calibration. So your statement that "At no point did they measure output from the controller" contradicts that. Please clarify. I got that wrong. - Jed
