I recall you taking up the DC cheating issue from your friend. You are searching for straws and wishing to throw as much non sense into the fray as possible. This is your technique to confuse people who are monitoring the site. They will not realize that you do not have a clue since all they detect is a lot of words that appear knowledgeable. Your statements are never backed up by any facts, just speculation. The only hole left for you and the others to crawl into involves scams and you know it.
Now that the DC issue has been proven wrong, you back away from it. Why did you not earlier acknowledge that it was a red herring if you knew that to be true? This represents more deception on your behalf. Were you afraid to use your real knowledge to set a fellow skeptic straight? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:38 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. I never made any claims about dc rectification. I said that the experimental design leaves opportunities for deception, one example of which is the cheese video. There are surely others that talented electrical engineers could design that would fool that cabal of trusting dupes, and would be impossible to deduce from a poorly written account of the experiment. I think it's a mug's game because it assumes that every possible method of deception can be excluded. There are obviously ways to reduce the possibilities of deception, but the best way is to have people *not* selected by Rossi arrange all the input power and its monitoring, make it as simple as possible (2 lines) and preferably from a finite source (generator), and use a method that visually integrates the heat, like heating a volume of water. It's just such nonsense to imagine that Rossi has a technology that will replace fossil fuels, and he can't arrange an unequivocal demonstration. > This [cooperative analysis of a particular deception scheme] is the way > science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of > cooperation between all parties concerned. If you think *science* is about second guessing someone's demo, and trying to sleuth whether or not he cheated, then you have no clue. Science at its best is about disclosing discoveries so others can test them. Even if Rossi needs to keep his sauce secret, the need to guess and speculate about what's going on, and to make models to determine something that *someone already knows* is not science. It's idiocy. And yes, I freely participate in this idiocy, but at least I don't call it science.
