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.
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Yes when a pseudoskeptic comes up with a scattershot of arguments in the alternative it is thought crime to take one of them and determine its veracity so as to eliminate a possibility. The pseudoskeptic's purpose is not for you to evaluate the arguments but to be frightened of thinking. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: 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.
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
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.
RE: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
My complements to Duncan for stepping up to the plate and taking time to do this. and of course to Dave Roberson for making the model in the first place. Thank you Dave/Duncan! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 7:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated I have good news to report. My hypothesis is that DC current generated by load rectification and thus flowing through the input AC sine wave power source (3 phase input to Rossi's ECAT) does not result in the stealing of any power from that source. Also, any second and higher order harmonic currents flowing through that source will not effect the measured, calculated and actual power being delivered by that sine wave source. I have a simple world view of this process where all of the power being delivered from the sine source can be determined uniquely by observing the sine wave current and voltage at the fundamental frequency of that source. This understanding is in line with the instrument measurements performed during Rossi's latest testing. Some of the critics have raised questions about the validity of my hypothesis so I constructed a simple spice model which confirmed my understanding. I have requested that Cude or any others interested in finding the truth construct a similar model and prove me wrong. This request has remained unanswered until yesterday when Duncan (who proposed the DC stealing concept) agreed to perform a replication. We are currently agreeing upon the setup and how to confirm which hypothesis is accurate. This is admirable of Duncan and I want to offer my appreciation to him for being open minded and willing to prove something of importance. His position is far removed from that of Cude who talks but never performs. I promise to post the results of this replication attempt on this list once it has been completed. No matter what the outcome, the data will be shown in a fair and open manner. This will allow anyone harboring additional questions an opportunity to seek clarification. This is the way science should be conducted and I hope that it represents the future of cooperation between all parties concerned. Dave
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Dave, Can the power analyzer sense DC voltages? I haven't been able to figure this out from the manual or the datasheet, but I'm sure someone who has actual experience with three-phase power measurements should be able to answer that question. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Berke, I have not seen an indication that that power meter senses DC directly. The DC that flows into of from the source supply does not need to be sensed in order to calculate the power being delivered from that source. I realize that this seems contrary to common sense, but there is mathematical support as well as spice model demonstration of this behavior. I can directly measure all of the power being given to the series diode and load resistor by the AC sine wave source by multiplying the RMS source voltage times the RMS fundamental current magnitude and taking into account the phase shift between them. All other harmonics and DC make no difference to the determination. The spice model replication will offer a second verification. This should put to rest the issue being repeated by Cude and other skeptics. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated Dave, Can the power analyzer sense DC voltages? I haven't been able to figure this out from the manual or the datasheet, but I'm sure someone who has actual experience with three-phase power measurements should be able to answer that question. -- Berke Durak
