This thing you say is true. But when the cornerstone that you have built your system on is not compatible with control, the system designer must discard that cornerstone and replace it with something else that works 100 % of the time.
Being the first Ni/H system that was designed, Rossi's system may contain fundamental control flaws that the current designers are mow trying to retrofix and overcome. At day zero, DGT saw the flaws in Rossi's control system and designed their system around absolute control from day one of their design. Statistical control is like saying that most of the time it is hot in august so turn on the air conditioners in august. Most of the time you are correct, but sometimes a bad thing happens. As a general rule, if you build a house on quick sand, you may want to move to solid ground and start over again no matter how long and how painful that move will be. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote: > Looong time ago, I builttest equipment, employedby AAB. I never saw or > heard of any thing not possible to measure or control. Sometimes it took > time tofind out the hooks and occasionally one picked wrong but it ws > correctable . I assume that is still true. (Semiconductors) > On Aug 19, 2014 5:58 PM, "Axil Axil" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> DGT revealed that even with a double Fariday shield, the reactor took out >> the phone system in the building that there test was held in. >> >> It is the same for the Rossi reactor. All the tests that Rossi ran before >> the sale of his IP is suspect as flawed, IMHO. >> >> The Ni/H reactor must be shielded and the control system must be placed >> away from RF interference, >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I wouldn't assume they have no automation, but maybe in their lab >>> experiments they do not. Regardless, it should not be terribly difficult >>> to build a control system. I presume he follows some kind of internal >>> rules and reacts based on the rules. If he can do it manually, it could be >>> systematized. >>> >>> Jack >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:08 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You can control a system without knowing exactly how it functions. >>>> Granted, it would be easier if you had a perfect handle upon it, but that >>>> is not required provided you know how it behaves to control stimuli. Of >>>> course, I am assuming it is possible to control the animal in some manner. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Terry Blanton <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 7:45 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:No automatic control system? >>>> >>>> It's due to not understanding how the reactor actually works. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
