If it can be agreed that the IR measurements were, to within some
reasonable margin of error, accurately measuring output power then the only
issue in dispute is how much input power was provided. If, and this
obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and the only
point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be taken (as
before) was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below and further
assuming that Rossi won't allow anyone to see him "start" the E-Cat what
tamper-proof measuring system would you insert at 'X'?
E-Cat ----------- Controller ---------X----------Wall socket
So, let's assume we have a test protocol such that:
1. The tamper-proof measuring system is taken to the lab and plugged in and
may not be unplugged.
2. The test team leaves.
3. Rossi brings in the E-Cat, plugs the controller into the tamper-proof
measuring system, and starts it.
4. The test team re-enter, confirm the tamper-proof measuring system has,
indeed, not been tampered with and set up the rest of their test gear.
So, what does the tamper-proof measuring system?
Would that satisfy everyone?
[m]
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Milstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
>> claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
>> furnace.
>>
>
> They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth,
> I think he was making two points:
>
> 1. They might have measured it any time. There were no restrictions. They
> told me that, and Rossi also made that clear. So this trick would not work
> because they had the means to see through it.
>
> 2. Those wires are macroscopic, as I said. They are large objects. You
> cannot fail to see one. They are not invisible or as thin as a hair. As
> noted in the paper, the authors lifted the controller box off the table and
> looked at it, and saw only the wires from the wall going into it. There is
> no chance they did not strip down all of the wires going into the
> controller to measure voltage. When you strip a wire, there is no chance
> you will overlook an extra wire hidden underneath it in separate insulation.
>
> Now, clearly, you do not believe this. You think the authors might have
> been fooled. You think they might have overlooked a wire. That is your
> opinion and you have a right to it, but I think you should acknowledge the
> authors themselves believed they looked for wires and found none. They
> stated this clearly. You might also acknowledge that that Jones Beene, I,
> and many others believe they can easily check for wires. We think wires are
> large objects that no one can overlook. So, let us agree to disagree about
> this aspect of the paper.
>
> - Jed
>
>
