The freedom let to have access independently to the socket, the entry cable, and the reactor exterior, let few possibility for fraud.
If a fraud is done, it should not be possible to detect it with the freedom taht Rossi concede to the testers. the coaxial hypothesis, is technically hard since the inside and the outside conductors, plus the insulators should sustain the voltage and the current. since the wires were having a normal diameter, the coaxial conductors would be overloaded. To avoid that current limit, the voltage should be high, but the insulator would be overloaded too.. moreover the plug was observed by Essen team, and if there was a coaxial plug, it would be visible, especially if that connector support high current or high voltage. Connectors are even more sensible than cables, and I have observed that fire start from sockets not from cables. no question whether Essen have well checked the socket. the question if someone smart could have, even with some luck, found the trick. if true, there is no chance for a fraud. anyway, the real problem is different, we all know it. It is assumed LENR is impossible, thus Rossi , Defkalion, Brillouin, Celani, Piantelli, Miley,HAVE TO be fraud. since LENR IS REAL, the simplest solution is that all that have to be analysed like we consider the claim of Peugeot when claiming they designed a new diesel engine with turbo. I just hope that we will keep the memory of the pile of delusion and stupidity that is expressed, for history. I'm afraid as said in another thread that all will be forgotten and that MIT and Cal-tech will invent LENR in 2015, as Taleb explain. 2013/6/23 Randy Wuller <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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. > >
