Your analysis requires fraud. There is no evidence of fraud, at best what you have proposed is a remote possibility assuming the testers failed to closely evaluate the wires.
Nothing close to something a reasonable person would conclude as the likely event. That's the problem with your analysis. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:05 AM, John Milstone <john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jack Cole said: > "This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does you > notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips as > rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with the > measured power on cycles." > > I'm not saying anything of the sort. > > What I am saying is that the there was an EXTRA 400 Watts, supplied > continuously, in addition to the measured power. Thus, the same 33% duty > cycle would vary between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts. Imagine the existing > chart, but with the power in line moved UP by 1/3. This makes the power out > line look just like a lump of steel, with no signs of "excess" power. > > I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the 3-phase > power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing nothing. If > the testers really were doing their own "surgery" on the power in lines, why > did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached between the power > outlet and the E-Cat controller? If they weren't doing their own "surgery", > then it would have been trivial to wire the 3rd, supposedly "dead" power line > to produce the desired effect.
