The two reactor power determinations each had their problems. The input signal to the oscilloscope was not clear to the streamed audience. The power signal seemed to be a high voltage followed by a variable voltage across the reactor. It was hard to tell whether the voltage varied around 0 volts are around a fixed bias.
The power determination from the EM spectrum did not work and looked to me to have been a waste of time. Without good calibration the pretense that the data taken was significant was just nonsense IMHO. It did appear that Rossi did not want Matts to get in the frequency of the power signal. The inference was that the frequency was propriety information. It would fit with the idea the power applied to the reactor to initiate a heat generating reaction was not associated with resistive heating but intended to establish a resonance within the reactor necessary to support the reaction. Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 ________________________________ From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 10:18:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24 I don't agree. The measurements of energy out & in were good enough to demonstrate the basic characteristics of the QX. That was the purpose of the demo. I t would be impossible to to do a replicable experiment without giving the IP away. The pathosskeptics make much of the crude power pack with 60 W of cooling But I don't believe that power could be magically transferred to heat the water. What could Rossi possibly get from such a scam? It's not to get money from the general public but possibly to interest venture capitalists: they would do their own due diligence, such as measuring the voltage across the reactor. -----Original Message----- From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Nov 25, 2017 10:16 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24 Video of demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkj-7whwpUk Funny that few comments are coming out on this - other than from Mats, who would benefit if this demo meant anything positive. In fact, it is not a demo in any real sense … it is disappointing theatre to all but the Rossi-flock. In no way does this salvage Rossi’s credibility with scientists, nor that of Levi and the Swedes, who still look like dupes who should, but will not, retract their egregious errors at Lugano. There is no useful information being supplied which can lead to verification or replication. Voltage appears to have been estimated from resistance… with pulsed power, that is a no-no and thus the input could have been hundreds of times greater than suggested. Why not measure input power at the plug and include the cooling power since it is required? Given Rossi’s three decade long record of fraud and deceit as a backdrop – either independent replication or a commercial product will be the only thing that can help. So far, this is little more than a crude repeat of the past 6 years except now there is even less relevant information to use in replication than with the past failures. Few will waste their time.
