Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and > the only point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be > taken (as before) was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below . . . >
He has agreed to another test. They are getting ready to do it. I believe the seven researchers prefer to measure between the wall and the controller box. I would, if I were doing it. Also, the skeptics would never believe measurements made between the controller and the reactor. > So, let's assume we have a test protocol such that: > > 1. The tamper-proof measuring system is taken to the lab and plugged in and > may not be unplugged. > A modern watt meter IS a tamper-proof measuring system. As I mentioned, they are made with integrated circuits these days. You cannot open one up and change the way it works. You can only wreck it. Decades ago these instruments had discrete components and I think an expert might have modified one to produce a fake answer. Also, any watt meter will measure any possible combination of waveforms and power settings correctly. Meters nowadays sample the power at rapid intervals, so the waveform is irrelevant. Decades ago I think some of them extrapolated power based on waveforms, but sampling is so fast now, there is no need for that. A $20 "Kill-a-Watt" meter that plugs in between the wall and the equipment plug is probably better and more reliable than a $1000 watt meter was in 1980. It is also made from just a few IC chips. Levi uses one of these as a reality check device. (I don't think they have 3-phase models.) If a watt meter underestimated power a great deal, or if it missed a large amount of electric power (like 200 W) it would cause an accident. It might kill an electrician or destroy equipment. There would be lawsuits galore. That simply does not happen. There is no way you can fool a watt meter or a utility billing watt meter. If Rossi -- or anyone -- knew how to make 900 W look like 300 W, the power companies would be bankrupt. You can make 901.6 W look like 899.2. In other words, the errors are about 1%. > 2. The test team leaves. > 3. Rossi brings in the E-Cat, plugs the controller into the tamper-proof > measuring system, and starts it. > There is no need to do this. Rossi is happy to let the team stay as long as they want. They told me that, and he told me that. The entire test run is performed with a video camera on the equipment to prevent him or anyone else from tampering with it. > Would that satisfy everyone? > It would never satisfy the skeptics. Nothing will satisfy them, except the endorsement of the establishment. Shanahan told me he will not accept the thermocouple reading because they did not present the entire data set. They said only that it tracked the IR camera to within 2 deg C. I am sure that if they did present the entire data set, he would find some other reason to reject the results. Finally, Shanahan, Yugo, Robert Park and the other skeptics will say "there might an undetected error so we cannot believe this." They do not understand when I tell them that cannot be tested or falsified, and it applies equally well to every experiment in history. - Jed
