Thank you for being straightforward on both points.
And now we definitively know that the cable itself is "secret".
Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move along,
nothing to see here.
Oh, OK, so there is one loose end which I've mentioned and which you didn't
address - Rossi's assertion that the team brought their own cables. It seems he
makes shit up as he goes along.
Of course, that will not bother the majority of people here. Move along,
nothing to see here.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question
Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote:
The cable is what connects the control box to the device. It appears from
the report that they did not examine it for anomalies.
They did not examine it. That would reveal trade secrets, as noted in the
report.
So, are the researchers free to replace it with one of their own, or not?
Of course not. They do not even have the specs for it.
What happens in the cable and controller is irrelevant to the energy balance.
Despite the discussions here, there is no way what occurs in the controller
box or the cable can "steal" electricity without the meters detecting it. That
would violate the conservation of energy. When electric power is consumed,
either the amperage or the voltage must rise.
You might hide input power from some types of meter by changing the output
from the electric plug. However, there has been a great of nonsense about that
here, as well. You can't do that merely by raising voltage. When voltage
exceeds the meter's limits, the meter does not ignore that. It displays a
message such as "EEEE" or "OUT OF RANGE."
The March dummy calibration run, according to the report, involved placing
voltage probes across the device while the control box was switched on in
non-pulsed mode.
You are right. It says:
"Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in
single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on
average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption of the
control box was approximately =
110-120 W."
In this case they were using the coils as joule heaters in a conventional
step-by-step calibration.
So your statement that "At no point did they measure output from the
controller" contradicts that. Please clarify.
I got that wrong.
- Jed
