As I have explained to you many times, a diode inside the control box can not fake out the power meter connected at the socket. This is elementary and should not be repeated by you or any of the skeptics. Why not perform a spice simulation if you are an EE as you claim to lay this to rest once and for all?
Kicking a dead horse does no good Andrew. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Andrew <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> 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". The control box is quite capable of switching diodes in and out of circuit, synchronously with the power pulses. Although you're not allowed to look inside the control box (this will reveal the secret waveform? there's another curious assertion!) and directly view any diodes there, in principle this fudge is detectable on the control box input with a scope. But not with an AC clamp ammeter. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: [email protected] Sent: 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 in", it would have to be occuring during the pulse OFF state - i.e. 65% of the cycle time. Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: Joshua Cude To: [email protected] 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 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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.
