I suggest that the fact that the current into the resistive heater elements was 
measured also eliminates this kind of magic.

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Yugo <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 11:38 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat





On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:

 

But if you wish, I can retract 'poisonous' 


Well, it's just that it doesn't fit most skeptical criticism of Rossi any more 
than does "snake" or "clown" with which Rossi is so fond of labeling people.
 

I am just writing an essay
about Rossi. Not black or white dualistic thinking.



I'll be interested to read that but don't you think it may be premature?   
Rossi has not revealed his hand yet.  Is there really much to say about him at 
this point other than that? 


By the way, the article has an interesting way of cheating the power-in 
measurement.  See the last figure.  I don't think Rossi does this but I can't 
rule it out.  In the photos, the line cord is taken apart and the wire being 
measured looks like it's a single cable.  I suppose Rossi could have made a 
special line cord with doubled conductors in each wire but that's a bit far 
fetched though certainly not impossible.  But while I don't think Rossi used 
that particular "magic" cheating method, I think it's important to note that 
it's one that most of us didn't think of, probably including Jed Rothwell.   
Which reinforces my issue that it's not possible to think of an anticipate 
every method by which Rossi could cheat.   That's the main and overwhelming 
reason why testing has to be independent and not involve Rossi's venue, his 
power supply, his coolant supply and most of all his enthalphy measurement 
methods.  It's the issue Jed seems to resist the most.

Jed challenges me to make the issue of whether or not Rossi is cheating 
falsifiable -- using any method including sleight of hand "magic".  Of course, 
the theory that Rossi is faking (by *any* method) *is* falsified if Rossi's 
device is proven to work independently of Rossi for long enough in a properly 
calibrated set up.  Somehow that logic seems to slip by.

This (the altered line cord) is an example of a faking method that, although 
it's an unlikely method in Rossi's case, would have been missed by K & E, Lewan 
and most likely everyone else.

Reply via email to