David Roberson said: "You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue." "Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? "You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven."
You can't treat the input and output as "different issues". If the input measurements were in error, the output measurements are meaningless. I don't understand your point about the Higgs Boson. Just last year, CERN announced that they had confirmed faster-than-light neutrinos. They were wrong. It seems to me that you're the one refusing to consider that Levi et al might be wrong. Rossi's tricks can't violate the laws of physics, regardless of his claims. If his latest test had been run using nothing but a few flashlight batteries, it would have been impressive. But to do that he really would need a miraculous new invention. Instead, he only showed as much "excess" power as could have been easily drawn from the power source to which the E-Cat was attached. Just as his steam demos (the ones with more than a single "guest" at least) never showed more power than one could fake by pretending to vaporize all of the water, while in fact only vaporizing a tiny portion of it. (If you calculate the apparent COP of your coffeemaker, assuming that ALL of the water in it was being vaporized. You'll find that the apparent COP is right around 6. That's the difference in power required to heat water from room temperature to boiling vs. actually vaporizing it.) Even his "Megawatt" E-Cat (which didn't actually demonstrate anything at all) had a diesel generator, capable of generating the claimed "excess" power, sitting right next to the E-Cat, running the whole time. John ________________________________ From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test "Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated." 'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, and that extra amount just happens to exactly explain the entire output power level. That doesn't prove that Rossi used this trick, but it certainly suggest that he could have done so.' You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue. 'For starters, CERN isn't selling "franchises" to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on "secret" customers and "secret" experts to validate their work. Etc, etc.' In either case, the proof is not there for a high bar. Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? This is true for just about every scientific discovery in the past. One can always cast doubt. 'There seems to be a lot of that going on among the believers. Rossi's setup makes it impossible to distinguish the heat being generated by the heating elements from the heat (if any) being generated by the E-Cat. There is no particular reason for that to be intrinsic to the process. Rossi could have easily provided a larger furnace, and then put thermocouples directly on the actual E-Cat (the inner cylinder) AND the inside of the furnace, allowing direct measurements of both. If the E-Cat got hotter than the furnace, it would be clear evidence that the E-Cat was generating its own energy. If not, then it was just a passive component. But Rossi chose not to set it up that way, and the testers obligingly went along with him.' Come on now. Rossi is not inclined to make a large number of individual systems just to satisfy skeptics. What he did is adequate if one accepts the camera system as being accurate. He would be foolish to continue to modify the device for your enjoyment. ''But that's not true. When he was doing his "steam" demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the "error" rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the "error" one would see if one were secretly using that extra, "dead" wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so.' You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven. Dave
