On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the > COP is greater than 1? Yes or no? > > > Read the reply again, with particular attention to the first word. I would have thought that elaboration was a good way to advance the discussion, but apparently you prefer a kind of cross-examination to a discussion. I don't claim to be certain of anything, but I am highly skeptical of a COP > 1, though there might be some amount of chemical heat produced in that cylinder. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat > test > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is >> greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition? >> >> >> > No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point. > > The claimed COP is 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's > far from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced > with 1/3 efficiency. > > So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the > power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this > excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with > sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations. > > > >
