Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

I am not suggesting that there was any modification of the laboratory wiring, such a thing would be ridiculous as you correctly point out. What I AM suggesting is that an oscilloscope be used to measure the CURRENT waveform at the electrical outlet, not the voltage. The voltage is obviously a s

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This whole collection of dozens of needless postings is itself the pathetic > invention of frustrated skeptics who think that Rossi "must be cheating" - > but cannot prove it ... so they are grasping at straws. > Perhaps. But it has been very e

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

eform draws a constant power from the AC mains. The complex actions taken by the controller are not known to us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I wrote: I ge

RE: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

The duty cycle could be the carrier wave… this explains part of AR’s reluctance to have this detail broadcast. The waveform in question may in fact be not so much “proprietary” as it is part of the claim of another patent application from a potential competitor (Energetics LLC) From:

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

I wrote: I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy, > and that it is at a very low frequency -- on the order of seconds. See > Plot 8 in the paper; this might be the waveform. (Note that the x axis is > in seconds.) > On second thought, that might just be the dut

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote: If my assumption is right that: > a: the proprietary waveform is of a much higher frequency/waveform then > the AC from the wall plug, > I get the impression the proprietary waveform might not be all that fancy, and that it is at a very low f

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Hi, On 27-5-2013 17:01, Jones Beene wrote: Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express frustration that the poster d

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

-Original Message- From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis "b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid," Exactly my thou

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Jones Beene wrote: > > Rossi did not want an oscilloscope present - period. Where did you hear this? The people testing the system said that he put no restrictions on the instruments they used. He only said they had to measure the power on the outside of the power supply. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Hi, On 26-5-2013 5:55, Duncan Cumming wrote: > Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a > type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. >

RE: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Whoa. Someone is building a mountain out of a molehill here - and for what purpose? To show that a that cheating could have been accomplished - as an exercise in remote possibilities or magic tricks? ... or is it to express frustration that the poster does not understand the experiment? Rossi did

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Andrew wrote: > They therefore have access to that place electronically. So in principle, > they could have attached a spectrum analyser and a scope. But they didn't, > because it wasn't allowed in pulsed mode; they were only allowed to do it > in manual mode. > They were allowed to do anything

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

"b: Andrea might be afraid for feedback signals coming from the E-cat control box back into the grid," Exactly my thoughts. The trouble is even with a low-pass filter I think you might see the waveform of the control on the scope if it is RF. I've certainly seen this with HFAC without the scope

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Hi, On 26-5-2013 12:28, Andrew wrote: A fuse blows when a certain *current* passes through it. P = V I cos (theta); *power is voltage x current x power factor*. Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage, which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. J

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Hi, On 26-5-2013 5:55, Duncan Cumming wrote: Now for the argument that Rossi runs the risk that somebody will try a type B meter (DC capable), or, for that matter, a simple oscilloscope. He simply does not permit such things. He claims not to allow an oscilloscope because it would reveal a "pr

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

The only doubt that was raised recently was from Levi interview that let me fear that Rossi did not let much freedom to the team to test DC... Where the testers allowed to measure DC ? Where they allowed to change the cable ? Where they allowed to use a wattmeter that is put as a in-out plug ? I d

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

"They could make any measurements with any equipment they chose" Jed, am I mistaken here? I thought it said in the paper that they were NOT permitted to measure the heater waveforms, because they were proprietary. Am I misinformed about this? Also my "scenario" is a simple diode. Hardly outla

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Duncan Cumming wrote: > We would avoid the ridiculous position that we are in now, when some data > is released (e.g. power output) but other data is withheld (e.g. power > input), for who knows what reason? Nothing is being withheld. Levi et al. were given unimpeded access to the input power.

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Duncan Cumming wrote: Now consider an insulated furnace equipped with cooling tubes. The device still loses the exact same number of watts to the cooling coils

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Duncan Cumming wrote: > Now consider an insulated furnace equipped with cooling tubes. The device > still loses the exact same number of watts to the cooling coils that it > previously lost to the ambient air . . . Given that the first one melted, I would want to put thing in the open air wher

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

No extra weight whatever. The NDA would not be for the purposes of convincing anybody about the demo. It would be for the purposes of allowing engineering measurements (waveforms, DC components and so forth) to be made. If Levi measured, for example, that there was no DC offset, chances are Ros

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Alan: Perhaps you can explain something to me. With the device in the ambient laboratory atmosphere, it loses a certain number of watts of heat to the air, but this is subject to variation from drafts and so forth. But even so, it is still possible to control the e-cat by modulating the elect

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

er day. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Maybe a series of fuses with different ratings would work? Your way of reasoning

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

> From: "Duncan Cumming" > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:53:45 PM > > He can use an NDA if he is worried about trade secrets. With whom? Levi et al? Since they're being called co-conspirators, what extra weight would derive from their saying "I saw the sekrit data under an NDA."

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

> From: "Duncan Cumming" > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:53:45 PM > > A few days of self sustaining running (cooling only without > electrical input) would be pretty convincing. Use electrical heaters > only for starting the reaction. I think it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

What WOULD go a long way towards convincing engineers that the effect is real is the simple use of DC power on the heaters. That completely eliminates all of this meter A / meter B nonsense. Plus some transparency from Rossi, allowing the engineers to measure what they want to measure, such as

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Alain Sepeda > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:58 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > that is what I've heard, confirmed by the spec of the powermeter > http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayse

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

x27;s just the way > it is. And I suspect that the testers were similarly cognitively > constrained. > > Andrew > > - Original Message - > *From:* Harry Veeder > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:15 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of th

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

On May 26, 2013, at 7:27, Robert Lynn wrote: > I find myself in a similar situation to 2011, tests that looked initially > compelling, appear with greater thought to have potentially significant > flaws. There is no need for 6 month long tests. I'm of two minds here. On one hand, I find the

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Randy Wuller wrote: Your point is not well taken. Proof is a continuum. > Exactly! Yes it fraud is remotely possible, as I and everyone else who believes these results agree. We think it is highly unlikely, because it the instruments are reliable; because you can't melt steel by hiding electric

RE: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Why do you continue to belittle this device with a barrage of silly comments? It represents either an egregious fraud and possibly a criminal act - or else it is a bigger technological breakthrough than was nuclear energy. There is no middle ground. There is no toaster here . except in the

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

> > That's if you're an honest scientist. YMMV. > > Andrew > > > - Original Message - From: "Ransom Wuller" > To: > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:44 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > >

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

There's one thing I know we can agree upon regarding the usefulness of Rossi's device - it would make a great toaster.

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I loved Carl Sagan but the biggest mistake he made in his lifetime was making that phrase popular. A claim requires evidence, it doesn't matter what kind of claim. If what you are saying

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

traordinary claims require extraordinary > evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as > concerned. > > Andrew > - Original Message - > From: Randy Wuller > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM > Subject: Re

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

wires. Andrew - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis that is what I've heard, confirmed by the spec of the powermeter http://www.industrial

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

dinary evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as concerned. Andrew - Original Message - From: Randy Wuller To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Andrew: Your p

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

gt; > Andrew > - Original Message - > From: Rich Murray > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > Thanks, Duncan -- > > I'd cert

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

; It was apparently out of range of this instrument. > > > Andrew > > - Original Message - > *From:* Harry Veeder > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:15 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > I am no

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

ginal Message - > *From:* Alain Sepeda > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > with skin effect, and 60kHz limit, DC is the only option, assuming other > components plugg

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

. And I suspect that the testers were similarly cognitively constrained. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis I am not an EE...i'm

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

- Original Message - > *From:* Harry Veeder > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > what about a fuse? or a light bulb(s)? > > harry > > > On Sun, May 26,

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

What about a giraffe wearing a beret? Did you mean for that to make sense? - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what about a fuse? or a light

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

re there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and > myself? > > Andrew > > - Original Message - > *From:* Harry Veeder > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis &g

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

60 KHz limit? Where did you get that figure? Are you an EE? - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis with skin effect, and 60kHz limit, DC is the

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

I'm talking about the E-Cat. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 2:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis no it is not the way. thomas kuhn explain that it is through build

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

on't work. > > Come to think of it, are there any EE's on this list except for Duncan and > myself? > > Andrew > > - Original Message - > *From:* Harry Veeder > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

ndrew > ** > The *only* way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. > > - Original Message - > *From:* Alain Sepeda > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:48 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypoth

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

eder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis No knowledge of the waveform would be required if a circuit breaker were used which trips if more power is getting in than Rossi claims. Harry On S

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

e only allowed to do it in manual mode. > > Andrew > > - Original Message - > *From:* Eric Walker > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

to do it in manual mode. Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew wrote: The only way to convince

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Andrew wrote: ** > The *only* way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. > They will be carrying out a much longer experiment in the future. If they were to have an electrical engineer take a close look at the input power across the entire range

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

The only way to convince the scientific community is via evidence. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis what you cannot deny is tha even if

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

> quite likely. > > Andrew > > - Original Message - > *From:* Rich Murray > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua > Cude > *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis > > Thanks, Dunca

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Thanks, Duncan -- I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific explosion of work on cold fusion. My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

I myself am somewhat doubtful about the power measurements, and would like to consider the meter A / meter B issue. There is nothing at all mysterious about this. Meter A is a current clamp, incapable of detecting DC. Meter B is a current shunt or hall effect clamp, capable of detecting DC. Th

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Everyone asking how physicist can be so dishonest have to read that slaids about Thomas Kuhn http://fr.slideshare.net/sandhyajohnson/the-structure-of-scientific-revolutions-thomas-kuhn-book-summary# it is why people less preformated to a science may thing more naturally than people thinking insite

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

We are now testimonials of a fierce war against a reality that destroys their Egos, the weapons used are those traditional in myriads of forms. See: "*Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality.” Jules de Gaultier

[Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

Several people have proposed that Rossi has secretly installed equipment in the wall circuit to deliver more electricity than the power meter shows. Common sense considerations show that this is so unlikely we can dismiss it. People should do a reality check. First, let us define the hypothesis, i