Joshua,
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.
It is evident that the output power is rising for the same amount of time as
the input is applied. After the input is removed, the output power begins to
drift downward during the entire time that the input power meter reads zero.
There is only a slight time delay visible between the transitions.
Why would you suggest that the power duty cycle might be much larger during
this test with the obvious picture evidence pointing otherwise? I was
beginning to think that you were being objective by your response to the
thermal camera issue and I had a hope that you would carry forth with this
newly found impartiality. Is it difficult for you to agree with obvious
evidence if it does not match your theory of the world?
The cheese power trick would not behave in the manner seen and you are well
aware of this so why not come clean even if it does not make your friends
happy? Try to be honest with your assessments and your inputs to this list
will be respected.
Can we count on you to be objective?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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
people without a theory would still not believe that the cheese actually
supplies the power. And such people could nevertheless design an experiment
that excludes tricks.
So, it's not necessary to know how Rossi may be tricking the meter to be
skeptical of the Ni-H claim. It's only necessary to know that it's not
excluded. And a frequency limited ac meter certainly does not exclude input
power that exceeds the meter readings.
Apparently, the meter indicated zero current during the off-portion of the
cycle. Using the method of the cheese power, there could have been nearly full
power then, wiping out the COP, which just happens to be the reciprocal of the
duty cycle.
Now, the temperature does respond to the on/off cycle, so there is some
modulation of the power, but it could be a fraction of the total power, so the
average is still near the full power.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrew <andrew...@att.net> 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?
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 "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 Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew <andrew...@att.net> 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 never thought that for the March experiment (where the COP was 3),
where they measure the emissivity. In that experiment, a pretty simple
deception illustrated in the videos I posted can explain the alleged COP.
I was more suspicious of the December experiment, where they did not
measure the emissivity, but those suspicions have been largely allayed by
Pekka's calculations, and my subsequent similar calculations. Only the
non-grey body considerations may have an effect, but it's a very long shot.
