Cude,
I was of the understanding that you have accepted the accuracy of the thermal imaging output power measurement. Are you now returning to that lost cause? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still validate the claim of significant over unity energy output. It's not an order of magnitude, it's a factor of 3. That's the power gain. You can get an order of magnitude in claimed energy density with only a 10% gain in power if you wait long enough. So, the claimed energy density is kind of arbitrary, and relies on the credibility of the power measurement. Still, a factor of 3 is a lot, and if the measurements can be trusted, it's difficult to make an error that large. But it's an indirect method, and if there's suspicion of tampering or deception, it's better to use direct methods. Heating an actual volume of water, or even a flow of water, is harder to fake, as long as you avoid phase changes, and put the thermocouple probes in the water.
