Josh, back to the same type of arguments. A long list that would be exhaustive to anyone reading is not the way to sort this out. I refuse to react to this non sense. Why do you not understand my explanation as to how heat can be used in a positive feedback system as a control? It is pretty elementary to me, but then again, I design things instead of retard their introduction.
So you find it educational to ask cab drivers, etc. how to handle physics problems? Now we know where you get those wild ideas. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to discuss the issues. I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to respond to everything promptly. I'm sorry if you felt neglected in the last round, but Rothwell spewed forth so much nonsense, that was nevertheless more comprehensible than your non-explanation explanations (which are really just assertions), that it took higher priority. As for the weekend, well, I do unfortunately have a life. I insisted to others who are part of it that there were more people than usual wrong on the internet, and it was really important that I straighten them out, but it was my anniversary, and my wife was having none of it. But on our little weekend, I asked everyone who would listen if they thought adding heat was a logical way to regulate positive thermal feedback, and everyone from the concierge to the waiter to the lifeguard at the pool said that while it might be possible in some contrived situation, it's the stupidest thing they ever heard of. Of course, I had to explain that it was like using an electric space heater to regulate the output of a fireplace. Only the cab driver hesitated, and said he'd get back to me after he checked with his dispatcher -- I'm still waiting. > We can show that every one of his positions is nothing more than speculation > with absolutely no substantiation. With only a paper to go on describing an experiment that we cannot test, that's true of every position, and in particular the position that it involves cold fusion. There are alternative explanations, and to the smart people, cold fusion is the least likely. You have made no argument to change that view. > He refuses to acknowledge errors I've acknowledged several errors that true believers have made. > that he continues to present as fact when he knows that they have no basis. I have presented as fact only things that are facts. Like the fact that they said they used 3-phase power. The idea that the purpose of the 3-phase is to obfuscate and make deception easier is, I have admitted, speculation, just as is the idea that there's any cold fusion going on. > He fails to understand how heat can be used to control the ECAT even though I > have attempted to explain it to him on numerous occasions. No. You really haven't. You have only said that you could explain it. I have asked for your proposed temperature dependence of the reaction rate and heat loss, and you haven't supplied it. > He fails to understand how the DC component … I have made no specific argument about dc. You are arguing with someone else. I have said that the meter they use is inadequate because it has a limited frequency range, and clampons measure only net ac current. Therefore power at a frequency outside the range of the meter would not be detected, or concealed conductors could produce zero net current through a clampon, while nevertheless delivering power to the load, as in cheese power. I'm no EE, but if you want to exclude tricks, you should measure the input in detail. There is no indication the connections were removed and checked carefully, or of any use of a scope. That makes it suspicious. One method of deception has been identified. I hardly think it's the only one, given the confusing wiring, and the even more confusing description of the wiring and the measurements. We can't even agree on where the measurements were made in some instances. I didn't follow the dc discussion you're talking about, and I don't follow what you're saying about it. But one thing that I've not seen excluded (in addition to the cheese power) is that the 3 power lines are all floating on a dc level because of tampering with the line itself. The clampons would not detect that, and neither would the interline voltage measurements, which is all that is reported. But if there's a neutral line in to the box, power can be generated from the dc component above that indicated by the meter. Hartman says he considered a dc bias of all the input lines, but that it would require a return line, and he looked for one from the ecat. If that's what Essen was referring to as excluding dc, then I'm not buying it. Because there was no measurement of the voltage or current on the lines to the ecat during the live run in March, so that says nothing. The voltage measurement was on the input, and there is no mention that a neutral line was not available there. So that's 2 scenarios I've proposed, and you have yet to propose a single scenario for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't stop you from believing it happens though. So, even if you reject some specific proposals, I don't understand why you can't admit the possibility of deception as an explanation without a specific scenario if you can accept nuclear reactions as an explanation without a specific scenario. It's a double standard, fed by your desire for cold fusion to be real. There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, when close associates choose the instruments which are completely inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. > The above cases and all the other so called evidence discussed by Cude would > not hold up in a court proceeding. Neither would the evidence for cold fusion. > He fails miserably in his attempt to prove anything except for what has been > stated by those performing the experiment. Obviously, nothing is provable, not even what has been stated, because the claims can't be tested. No one else has proved anything either. What's your point? > I challenged him to construct a spice model that easily proves that his DC > contentions are non sense I made no specific dc contentions (until this post), so you're making shit up. And I challenged you to explain the nuclear reactions, and the claimed power density, and you hide. If you don't need to explain the nuclear reactions to believe them, I don't need to explain the deceptions to believe they are possible. > So, instead of facing the issues head on, he prefers to spill out a barrage > of statements that are not true Which statements have I made that are not true? You never address my arguments. You just repeat yours, which I have already crushed.
