Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the COP is greater than 1? Yes or no?
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Josh, your entire theory will be shot if you acknowledge that the COP is greater than 1. Are you now ready to accept this condition? No. The only thing you seem to be able to do is miss the point. The claimed COP is 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's far from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced with 1/3 efficiency. So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations.
