On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com > wrote:
> An IR laser wouldn't need to be intense, it/they could be spread out over > a wide beam/spot, not eye dangerous, and not particularly noticeable if you > weren't looking at it and you were in close proximity to the hot e-cat > (could even be optically triggered to turn off off if someone moved in > front). Not saying it was done, just that it could be done, and would only > cost a few $1000s at ~$4/Watt for laser diode bars. > > And Andrew makes a valid point about the power supplies. Clamp ammeters > are a bad solution compared to inline resistance measurement, + voltages > across all the wires. The meter in question can measure harmonic > distortion, but looks at a primary frequency and assumes balanced 3 phase > AC, so an additional high frequency, DC or other distortions would likely > be invisible to the meter. > > It appears that these clamp ammeters on this AC optimised meter cannot > measure DC, which is unfortunate seeing that some Hall-Effect type clamp > ammeters can. > > http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat&_listpos=12 > Most three phase sources also have a ground wire, that would be unlikely > to have been checked for current (I doubt the testers could check this with > the equipment they had without disconnecting the power supply, which they > probably couldn't during the test). > > And the possibility of a DC supply grounded through the frame would also > need to be checked - could be done by putting clamp around all wires, just > as for the 3 phase power supply. > > Point is that it looks like it might be possible to hide additional > electrical power supply within what the testers looked at, and we don't > have enough information from the testers to check on all of these issues, > however it is possible that they performed sufficient checks. > > I am on balance fairly convinced, but like many I harbour doubts about > Rossi based on his dodgy history and apparent willingness to mislead at > times. It needs rigorous (skeptical) testing to really get doubters onside. > > > On 22 May 2013 02:47, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers. Can you >> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path >> radiation caused serious injuries? This is far outside the realm of >> reality. >> >> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can >> be set aside with the proper scrutiny. >> >> Dave >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem >> >> Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly >> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know. >> >> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly. >> >> Andrew >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem >> >> And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that >> they were all blinded by the high power IR. Give me a break. >> >> Dave >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem >> >> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world. >> >> Andrew, infrared lasers? Really. >> >> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would >> create spot heating of the test device. >> >> :-) >> >> >> >
