Andrew, This isn't about believe or disbelieve. black or white. Any good scientist uses a 'sliding scale', and as more data comes in, that scale is adjusted as to whether a given phenomenon or claim has gained in credibility, or diminished. For me, this test has pushed that sliding scale a little further to the credible scale. that's all. Time will sort this out, and I don't think we'll have to wait too much longer.
RE: your comments about possible input power trickery. I believe they determined that the power consumed by the Control Box was (on pg 18): "From this one derives that the power consumption of the control box was approximately = 110-120 W." This was done during the 'dummy' test. In addition, they ran the control box CONTINUOUSLY during the dummy test, not with the 65/35 (Off/ON) duty cycle used in loaded reactor runs. THUS, the power consumption of the control box during those runs was likely 1/3 the above estimates. In fact, the 'conservative' estimates they used in the fueled reactor runs did NOT subtract out the control box power, meaning they assumed ALL electrical power measured at the wall plug went into the reactor, and none into the control box. That is the most conservative way to do the calcs as far as the input power is concerned. PS: I remember your last name from the days of sci.physics.fusion, and all the activity on that forum starting with P&F's 1989 announcement. I think I still have some printouts of some of the discussions. -Mark From: Andrew [mailto:andrew...@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem It's been pointed out here in comments by Isaac Brown <http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently -verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently- verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas that the input power measurement was done on the E-Cat side of the supply box. You might think that this immediately eliminates the "battery hoax" theory, but it turns out that the power measuring equipment would be insensitive to anything other than 50-60Hz. Therefore DC power could certainly be snuck in there. There is also no barrier, as the commenter notes, to using frequencies other than 50-60 Hz to convey unseen power to the device. I think I've made a decision about this thing. I'm not going to believe it (let alone speculate about what nuclear processes are involved) until it's demonstrated in a completely self-booted configuration. Zero power input, in a metal box of independent design to foil "output hoaxing", and run for weeks on end. There are simply too many ways to fool people, given the controls stipulated by Rossi et al over this experiment. I don't trust him. Best, Andrew Palfreyman ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew <mailto:andrew...@att.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem I think it's valuable to approach this topic as would a stage magician - just recall how far this sort of keen observational common sense got Randi; you don't need a whole lot of physics, but you do need a "jaundiced eye". Rossi is not renowned for his honesty, after all, and therefore one has to be prepared to fight fire with fire, but without devolving into some hopelessly crabby sceptic. I realise that discussing the mechanics of a scam may be distasteful to some purists, but hey, there's a lot of money involved here, and we are all grown-ups. Below we're discussing the input hoax. As for the output hoax, I've run across a second possibility (my first was infrared lasers). Those long "resistors" could serve double duty as RF receiving antennae. Same principle as the lasers, but just a different frequency. And note that all this was done inside Rossi's own facility. Note further that, according to Randi, scientists are the most easily-fooled audience of all. Just ask Geller and Taylor. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew <mailto:andrew...@att.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem A hidden wire at 10 KV would need to carry only 50 mA. That's "small". A battery would need to supply (say, conservatively) 500 W for 116 hours, or 200 MJ. Lithium batteries are about 2 MJ/Kg, so that's 100 Kg of battery. I agree that's unlikely but don;t have enough information to make the call. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: You're missing my point. A power meter looking at wall power is blind to any internal power source in the box that directly supplies the device with additional power. What sort of internal power source? A generator? That would noisy and obvious. A battery? That would run out before 5 days elapse. Or, if Rossi has developed such a battery, it is an important discovery in its own right. A hidden wire? It would have to be a fairly large wire, to carry 500 to 800 W. They would see it. Do you have anything else in mind? - Jed
