Refreshing my memory as follows: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/topics/584
<Snip> Additional information was provided, that Defkalion had seen disruption of electronic equipment by the device, such as their phone system being shut down; the measurements reported were with all shielding removed; normally, they operate the Hyperion with mu-metal and other shielding, to cut down on EMF interference. It is not surprising that there could be massive noise, they are stimulating the reaction through a high voltage applied to those spark plugs used as convenient feed-thrus at either end of the device. Classic spark RF signal. Wide-band, mostly illegal nowadays, because of how much disruption it can create. Devices that can generate this kind of noise must be shielded, or they will be located and shut down. <EndSnip> I seem to remember that the RF interference during the demo was produced with a doubly shielded Reactor. DGT would not be unwise enough to run that ICCF-18 demo with an unshielded reactor. As in nuclear power where neutrons drive the reaction, neutron radiation protection is a major issue. In LENR, where EMF drives the reaction, RF protection will be a major issue. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am going from memory here which could be misapplied. Anyway, DGT remarks > associated with the ICCF-18 demo regarding EMF interference leads me to the > conclusion that during the demo, DGT first became fully aware of the full > extent of the problems caused by the disruptive power that LENR related EMF > interference placed on the associated instrumentation during NiH testing. > > For one thing, DFT observed that the NiH reactor took out the entire phone > system throughout the building in which they demoed the NiH reactor. > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> It is likely that Gamberale was not away of this *idiocynrocy implicate >>> *in the NiH reactor and his test was flawed because of it. >>> >> >> No, that would not apply during the calibration phase. Gamberale reported >> spurious excess heat during calibration with the reactor turned off, and >> also when the flow rate was zero. That cannot be anything but an instrument >> artifact. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
