Axil Axil wrote:
> It is like explaining how a rocket works to a muleskinner.
>
Note, however that the astronomer Milton Humason began his career as a
muleskinner during the construction of the Mt. Wilson observatory. Then he
became the janitor in 1917. Then in 1919 he was promoted to staff and
b
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> It is not clear to me that CF works best in a completely solid
> environment. Melting may accelerate the effect, but if the melting
> occurs just beneath the surface like magma, pressure will build and
> volcanic like explosions will occur pr
*…whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100
times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting,…*
The fission reactor is extremely inefficient in its use of nuclear fuel.
The limiting factor in the nuclear fuel utilization is the zirconium
cladding that enclo
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
>>
>
>
>
> The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
> alternative explanation must described in d
, 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 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
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
>>> reputations on the line.
>>>
>
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson 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 ever
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
>
The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to
explain the thermodynamics of a pow
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> So, do you need help with that spice model?
>
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of how deception mig
I meant to write that Edison was called "a disgrace, who takes
*us*backwards." "Us" meaning people working on electrical engineering
and
incandescent lighting. As I recall, one of Edison's commercial rivals said
that. You will find similar quotes from Rossi's jealous rivals in cold
fusion.
That wa
Alain Sepeda wrote:
people have to see that the pretended skeptics are in fact conspiracy
> theorist of the worst species.
>
I agree. Plus they judge everything by personality and their own
assumptions, and they see only one side to a personality. They point to
Rossi's odd behavior and his dodgy
at is why I ask you to concentrate
>> upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much?
>>
>> Dave
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Joshua Cude
>> To: vortex-l
>> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
> to discuss the issues. We can show that every one of his positions is
> nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation.
>
> He refuses to acknowle
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
>> reputations on the line.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim igno
: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Well, that's the general strategy of group selection: Get the group on your
side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller group.
It isn't the human condition so much as it is the civi
>> material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate
>> upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much?
>>
>> Dave
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Joshua Cude
>> To: vortex-l
>> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
>&
oice. Is that asking too much?
>
> Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Bring on yo
In reply to Robert Lynn's message of Fri, 31 May 2013 11:44:44 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
>Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the
>quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope
>have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper th
nt: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a
>> few moments to show how DC flowing into the control bo
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a few
moments to show how
remove yourself from this discussion since
> that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique o
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>
> What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes
> definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the
> beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden wires.
> Therefore most
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>
>
> Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
> reputations on the line.
>
I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact
their ignorance is the most plausible explanation.
]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded it,
but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they s
Robert Lynn wrote:
Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not
improve the quality of the discourse.
Bill Beaty told me he did not precipitously throw out Andrew. They
discussed the rules, and concluded that this forum is not the best fit
for Andrew at this time.
- Jed
On May 31, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it
> might have been done.
That is very healthy attitude. Many people often forget how easy it is to
create illusions and how hard it is expose them if the illusionist
Hi,
On 31-5-2013 12:44, Robert Lynn wrote:
I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of
dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering' rule is being applied
asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a
doctrinal church.
Killing off opposing views like Abd, A
Kevin, that doesn't look like sneering to me, more like simply Joshua's
assessment of the motivations for positions that others are taking, without
invective or nastiness that I can see.
I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of
dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering' rul
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
>>
>
> Only according to the credulous true believers.
>
> you want it to be true.
>
***Sneering. Against the rules.
Joshua, I'm gon
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
>
Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded
it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they say
without scrutiny, then why bother reading the pa
: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in
>> place ahead of time, when close associates chose the instruments which are
>> completely inadequate, when the
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Regardless of how it's done, or whether Rossi used the same method, the
> demonstration is very nice illustration that meters can be fooled quite
> easily when there is a little infrastructure to hide things, and that when
> an extraordinary cla
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
> **
>> Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post
>> them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I
>> have a theory about how they're do
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew wrote:
**
> Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them
> again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a
> theory about how they're done. Should I give that out?
>
I already sussed it out. It's i
It's the band thing.
If e = 1 in the band which the camera can "see", and significantly lower
in the rest of the spectrum, then the equations they used will show a
(perhaps markedly) higher power than was actually generated.
Or do I have it backward? Damn! this stuff is confusing.
Anybody
once and for all?
Kicking a dead horse does no good Andrew.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood Duncan's "diode fudge
Joshua, I hope that you will attempt to find the truth instead of continue to
play games.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed
> the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input
> power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power.
>
>
I mentione
what ever does the clamp, if bellow 32kHz, the power meter catch it and
compute the real power.
modern powermeter (and even old analog like the one I used in the 80s)
don't care of the shape of the signal. it make the integral of the U*I
product over time...
only problem is bandwidth, high and low
will be respected.
Can we count on you to be objective?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is, many
p
nt: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of
the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already
mentioned, if there's any power being "snuck
cycle time.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is,
many people without a theor
have a
> theory about how they're done. Should I give that out?
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Andrew
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
> What "sim
imo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
What "simple deception" are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the
cable? Something else?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eski
What "simple deception" are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable?
Something else?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On M
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew wrote:
> **
> Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e,
> you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is
> calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity.
>
>
>
No, I
Andrew wrote:
Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the
emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower
(roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then
you've reduced COP to unity.
This assertion is nonsensical. You have forgotten the
tance of
> the future test data?
>
> Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: Joshua Cude
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:00 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>> Josh questions:
>>
>> “I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
>> don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its
>> dep
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:00 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Eric Walker wrote:
Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emi
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint
wrote:
Josh questions:
“I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
don't think w
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> Josh questions:
>
> “I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used. I
> don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint, nor its
> dependence on wavelength.”
>
> ** **
>
> You could just as eas
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Eric Walker wrote:
>
> Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is
>> implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
>> assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calcula
Eric Walker wrote:
Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is
> implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in
> assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation),
> people are neglecting to see what effect it has on th
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>>
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
> emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
> range lead to an over estimation of power?
>
Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, th
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the
>>> December test was, nor whether it was wavelengt
nder if they really
meant carborundum (SiC)?
-Mark Iverson
From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> From: &
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This document stands as its own rebuttal.
>
I think that overstates things. After reading through the comments,
Ekstrom brings up a number of details that could plausibly be remedied in
any followup test. I think we have exaggerated the defi
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>> But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
>> test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint
>> for which an assumption o
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> So Josh,
>
> Why do you **ignore** the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the
> emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???
>
> Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
> ‘experts’ who make such a
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> > From: "Joshua Cude"
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
>
> > And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
>
> Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
> emissivity of 0.2
>
>
I'm no e
I got it right first, and today, briefly, I believed Ekstrom. Then I returned
to sanity
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the
2nd test it's trustworthy was the meaning
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew wrote:
You're saying that the measured emissivit
> From: "Randy Wuller"
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:13:36 PM
> The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates
> (calculations) would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they
> most likely offset each other.
See my post on the P = a . e . T^4 calculation. 0.85 <= e <= 1
> From: "Joshua Cude"
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02:02 PM
> I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used.
> I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint,
> nor it's dependence on wavelength.
Then forget about the December test. The authors admit
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>
> Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
> ‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???
>
Confirmation bias. ;)
Eric
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
> test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint
> for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power.
> A few measur
o:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint
wrote:
Jed:
More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer cylinder
> From: "Joshua Cude"
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
> And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
emissivity of 0.2
Jed:
There are really 2 issues regarding the emissivity. When the Thermal Scanner
takes a reading it is imaging from the object. In order to convert that image
to temperature one must know the emissivity. The scanner has a formula based
on the emissivity. You are absolutely right that by in
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
> > From: "Joshua Cude"
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
>
> > And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
> >
> > P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
> >
> > a e Tc Tk P
> > area 18 1.00E-10 0
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e"
> (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
>
> "The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
> [2]. The lower value would
> obviously yield a much lower
> From: "Joshua Cude"
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
> And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
>
> P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
>
> a e Tc Tk P
> area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 <=== lower "e" OVER-estimates the power
> area 19
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
> Jed:
>
> More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
> the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!
>
Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted.
> ** **
>
> Y
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
> And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
>
> P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
>
>ae Tc Tk P
> area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 <=
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
>> positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
>> quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at l
An interesting point worth pursuing, at some point - is what nickel alloy has a
Curie point in the range of the HotCat core, and is also known to be active
with hydrogen? Is there a high temperature alloy with high CP which is also
hexavalent?
The common alloys for high temperature Curie poi
Andrew wrote:
> Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
> coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3,
> but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
>
No, it is not a coincidence. The red curve is normalized to fit the graph.
The ratio is
line of reasoning; or was
it Gary Wright?
-Mark Iverson
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the &q
> From: "Jed Rothwell"
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
> For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the
> "e" (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
>
Andrew, remember the cop is a conservative estimate so it is just a
coincidence that the numbers happen to have those ratios.
Harry
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew wrote:
> **
> Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon
> which nobody else here has raise
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the "e"
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
"The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1."
He has this backw
Andrew wrote:
**
> You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm
> willing to buy that . . .
>
Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is
*not*"trustworthy." It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible
value.
In the second test it is set
Joshua Cude wrote:
> It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
> positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
> quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower
> emissivity like 0.2.
>
This is an *equation* for cryin
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
>> The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
>> converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
>> a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at hig
Andrew wrote:
**
> There are 3 cases:
>
> 1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time
>
No, it is probably higher, but it cannot be measured with certainty because
we do not know the recovery rate. (This is not a calorimeter.)
> 2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the time. COP > 1 dur
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy.
>> Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
>> registration of current with a clamp-on
Andrew,
It is worth of comment. You haven’t been paying attention apparently… probably
due to an imbalance of the ratio between posting vs. listening.
There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other
names are used.
And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur wh
Jones Beene wrote:
> The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
> converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
> a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher
> temperature.
>
> ** **
>
> Levi & the Swedes (sound
Keep in mind the possibility that the value of n depends on the wavelength,
and therefore presumably on the final calculated temperature, and so an
iterative procedure may be needed. In other words, the comparison will not
be between 2 emissivities for the same n, but for different n's, and the
com
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check
> out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
> registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know
> how it works, but I'm pre
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding.
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, Ma
I'm putting the Optris calculations into a spreadsheet -- the following is
documentation of the formulae used in readable form
From the Optris "IR Basics" documentation (Page 7)
ber who that was). And I
remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique
27;s at least 3 of us who had it
> wrong.
>
> ****
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
>
&g
least 3 of us who had it
wrong.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
"Comments on the report 'Indication of anom
me results in COP=3,
> but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Andrew
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
>
> Ekstrom's cri
ndy Wuller
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity. You
can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did. That is nonsense. It was also
tes
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
