On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> At first, this looked like it could be the only thing of real substance > that Cude has presented in the entire thread, but it turns out to be an > admitted prank, > > ** > That's the point. A prank here is a deception there. It shows you can fool clamp-on and in-line ammeters very easily. ** > > in which the prankster adds: “In all seriousness, I don't think that the > Hot Cat was actually provided with extra hidden power this way. The Levi et > al. paper shows data that indicates a rising and falling temperature in > lockstep with the on-off cycles of applied power, and if that data is real > and not "estimated" then it would appear to rule out this method of faking.” > **** > > ** > Doesn't matter if he doesn't think it was done this way or not. It certainly could have been. (And he is convinced that there's a trick in there somewhere.) The temperature variation shows that there was clearly some modulation of the power to the ecat. It clearly does not show it was from the maximum power to zero. It could have been from some slightly elevated power to a slightly depressed power. You know the light bulb was not exactly the same brightness in the line and cheese modes either. I'm sure the actual levels can be modified to taste. being unable to provide any real substance to his claims.**** > > ** > The point is that the claims are coming from Rossi's side. And he's not succeeding in convincing skeptics because alternative possibilities like this are never adequately excluded. I predict they never will be, and a year from now, we'll be no further ahead. Maybe a new ecat version, with yet another type of claim, but of course, as *always*, still with input, and a COP less than that of a good heat pump. And Rothwell will fall back to citing McKubre 1994 as the best evidence for cold fusion. It was always thus. >
