Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Alan Fletcher wrote: > I guess the headers say it IS going to vortex, despite the name (which is > all that shows up in Zimbra web, which tries to be TOO clever with email > addresses) > > From: John Milstone > Reply-To: John Milstone <== > There is a better way to do this, but I do not

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

At 11:03 AM 6/23/2013, Alan Fletcher wrote: John Milstone < john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com > wrote: *PLEASE FIX YOUR REPLY-TO ADDRESS ** (Last warning --- I'm not going to reply to anything you send which doesn't go straight back to vortex ) I guess the

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "Jed Rothwell" > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:25:47 PM > Been there. Done that. I don't recommend it. Just ignore convection > if you don't believe the textbooks. You get significant excess even if you > leave it out. Agreed. Quite a big component for the March COP=3 test -- insignific

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Alan Fletcher wrote: > 3. Use two thermocouples for the entire test (also logged) -- eCat > cylinder (test point chosen by use of IR camera) and ambient. > I believe the IR camera has an on-board thermocouple for ambient. Another would not hurt. > Nobody's pointed it out, but the LEAST accu

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "Jed Rothwell" > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:34:27 PM > He has agreed to another test. They are getting ready to do it. I > believe the seven researchers prefer to measure between the wall and > the controller box. I would, if I were doing it. Also, the skeptics > would never believe me

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Mark Gibbs wrote: If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and > the only point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be > taken (as before) was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below . . . > He has agreed to another test. They are getting ready

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

If it can be agreed that the IR measurements were, to within some reasonable margin of error, accurately measuring output power then the only issue in dispute is how much input power was provided. If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and the only point at which el

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Eric Walker wrote: > I recall them specifically stating that they were not permitted to measure > anything coming out of the controller, although I do not have a reference > for this. > There has been some talk about that, but they did not mention restrictions in the paper. Except to say that t

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Accidentally sent directly to John Milstone . . .] John Milstone wrote: Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your > claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube > furnace. > They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jone

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone wrote: Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your > claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube > furnace. > They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth, I think he was making two points:

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Accidentally sent to John Milstone's personal email address.] On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, John Milstone < > john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports >> your claim tha

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, John Milstone wrote: Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your > claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube > furnace. > I recall them specifically stating that they were not permitted to measure a

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone < john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com > wrote: *PLEASE FIX YOUR REPLY-TO ADDRESS ** (Last warning --- I'm not going to reply to anything you send which doesn't go straight back to vortex ) > From: "John Milstone" > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "John Milstone" > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:50:21 AM > Alan, > > I guess I'm not making myself clear. There is no need for a "DC bias" > of the power input. [ etc etc ] In my simulation I refer to "DC" as a constant source of Spice CURRENT, (representing thermal POWER), whether pr

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

The freedom let to have access independently to the socket, the entry cable, and the reactor exterior, let few possibility for fraud. If a fraud is done, it should not be possible to detect it with the freedom taht Rossi concede to the testers. the coaxial hypothesis, is technically hard since th

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone wrote: > > The "wire trick" (simply running a complete second circuit with both > conductors hidden in a single "wire"), uses only the normal A/C voltage > supplied by the mains. > A wire cannot be hidden. It is not invisible. It is a macroscopic object. Anyone can see it at a glan

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Your analysis requires fraud. There is no evidence of fraud, at best what you have proposed is a remote possibility assuming the testers failed to closely evaluate the wires. Nothing close to something a reasonable person would conclude as the likely event. That's the problem with your anal

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Jack Cole said: "This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does you notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips as rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with the measured power on cycles." I'm not saying anything of t

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Jack Cole said:

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Alan, I guess I'm not making myself clear.  There is no need for a "DC bias" of the power input. The "wire trick" (simply running a complete second circuit with both conductors hidden in a single "wire"), uses only the normal A/C voltage supplied by the mains. It isn't the voltage that is rig

Re: [Vo]: About the March test -- Spice Simulation

> OK --- I have a calibrated (but still to be checked) run for the main > waveforms : > > http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_02.png > > Right now the Triangle/Sawtooth look the best (they differ only in > the fall time). The triangle (150-sec rise, 150-sec fall) has its peak too

Re: [Vo]: About the March test -- Spice Simulation

OK --- I have a calibrated (but still to be checked) run for the main waveforms : http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_02.png Right now the Triangle/Sawtooth look the best (they differ only in the fall time). That "02" plot's for the output temperature. I'll get some preliminary

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

gt; -- > *From:* Alan Fletcher > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: About the March test > > > From: "Andrew" > > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM > > > &g

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I disagree. Although the more superfluous speculations of religious authority about natural sciences were invalidated, the core doctrine of the church was not at all under any kind of threat because they had, wisely as professional fraud artists, distanced themselves from testable theories in that

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I agree, but initially many people will see that physics is held accountable, to the extent this is possible these days. Apparently, no one can be held accountable any longer unless they suggest controlling guns or not controlling abortion. Every other action, including fraud, lies and outr

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

(Accidentally sent to John Milstone's personal email address.) I wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone wrote: > > There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: >> > > In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one > must assume good faith on the pa

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Sometimes you can't separate input coming into the system from generated > heat, so you use calorimetry to measure the input and then subtract it from > the power out. > That came out a little mangled, but the point still applies. Eric

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to > accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took > so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the > energy was so great.

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM, John Milstone wrote: There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: > In order to appreciate the report as being potentially interesting, one must assume good faith on the part of Rossi. If one assumes fraud or the likelihood of fraud, we are led down the p

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "Mark Gibbs" > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:16:21 PM > Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... > only the two posts we discussed. It was one of the two posts. It remained disappeared (lost, or stolen or strayed .. it seems to have been mislaid) so muc

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> I don't know if you ever looked at my fakes document (the lost post which > never DID show up ...) > > Did you post that on Technobabble? I never saw anything like that ... only the two posts we discussed. [m]

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "Mark Gibbs" > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 6:15:18 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test > I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the criticisms and the > arguments for and against as a sort of FAQ to add to the test > results. I don'

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

erhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test Speaking of the next Rossitesting, there is a

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Hi, On 21-6-2013 21:49, John Milstone wrote: Again, it's clear from the full description that they were looking for additional WIRES. There is nothing about checking what was IN the wires. Just to borrow a phrase from Jones: "This is complete bull crap !" It seems you are completely clueless

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I can check it out when more > information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. > > Dave > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene > To: vortex-l > Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test > > > Speaking of

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I live fairly close to this area. Perhaps I can check it out when more information is available. It would be less than 100 miles from my home. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: About the March test

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "Jed Rothwell" > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:19:11 PM > Let me explain to John Milstone that we discussed this DC power issue > here previously. I think the electrical engineers here agree that is > ruled out. I doubt that anyone will bother to respond to you about > this now. Not becau

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

David Roberson wrote: > Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power > sneaking in? > I believe that is Milstone's hypothesis. Let me explain to John Milstone that we discussed this DC power issue here previously. I think the electrical engineers here agree that is

RE: [Vo]: About the March test

Speaking of the next Rossi testing, there is a village in North Carolina, you probably know the one nearby - which may well be the new home of the big blue box - which was shipped out of Italy recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayodan,_North_Carolina . and which is fairly close to

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

David Roberson wrote: Read what Jed says about your misrepresentation of the facts. > He is not misrepresenting facts! He does not believe what the authors say. He thinks they looked for insulated wires and did not check under the insulation, and he thinks they let Rossi attach the voltage probe

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

here makes any reference to the topic of LENR. It is entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi is a fraud. John From: Edmund Storms To: John Milstone Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dea

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

d Rothwell To: John Milstone Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John Milstone wrote: There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing "surgery" on the power lines. Please rephrase this. The report clearly states that they che

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

: [Vo]: About the March test The wire trick puts both sides of the circuit in the same "wire". It's nothing more than using a lamp cord masquerading as a single conductor wire (only using wires that don't make it obvious that there are actually two conductors in the s

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Just a reminder -- Read the LEFT scale "V" as Temperature (Green line "Ladder" ) Read the RIGHT scale "A" as Power (Red : Starter pattern, Green-gray : pulse, Blue : Fake DC) http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_01.png

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "John Milstone" > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:01:07 PM > FWIW, I put together a new version of "Plot 8" from the original > report, showing the full Y axis and adding the power-in if the wire > trick were being used. > The chart is here: http://s10.postimg.org/btaoiv6eh/E_Cat_Power.p

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone wrote: There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing > "surgery" on the power lines. > Please rephrase this. The report clearly states that they checked. QUOTE: "The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It wa

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Jed Rothwell said: "Anyone who glances at voltmeter probe connected to a wire will see there is one conductor only, and not a second, insulated one under it." The second "cheese" video shows that this isn't true.  He measures the voltage of his rigged power cord at about 10:30 into the video: 

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

ot convinced that they were competent or diligent enough to detect such fraud. John From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I admit I did not see your other posts.  Sorry about that one.  What you said does

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone wrote: > Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a > bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But > there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the > ones who did the "surgery" to access those test poi

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

very good approximation of an inert lump of metal. The chart is here:  http://s10.postimg.org/btaoiv6eh/E_Cat_Power.png John From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test   Where

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I guess you haven't bothered actually reading my earlier posts. With the "dead" wire rigged to supply power continuously, we would se

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

en > conductor in the supposedly "dead" wire. (If the wire wasn't doing > anything, why was it left in the circuit?) > > John > > ---------- > *From:* David Roberson > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM &g

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

sedly "dead" wire.  (If the wire wasn't doing anything, why was it left in the circuit?) John From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John,   Please explain h

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

g to discredit "hot" fusion (or other >branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. > >John > > > > > > >____ > From: David Roberson >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM >Subj

RE: [Vo]: About the March test

: John Milstone Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this m

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on)

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

(or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that Joh

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: David Roberson > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test > > I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I > hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been sai

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

bject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LEN

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

al physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed.  Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I've been answering mail in sequence -- I see Jones said much the same thing already.

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "John Milstone" > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:07:40 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test > For starters, CERN isn't selling "franchises" to the Higgs Boson. > CERN doesn't rely on "secret" customers and "secret"

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

to the E-Cat, running the whole time. John ____________ From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test "Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by t

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

You miss (ok you avoid) a key point on all of your critics. Since Rossi wasn't allowed to forbid DC measurement with my home voltmeter, or removing insulator, or installing a connection box, on the fly, with classic wired ammeter/powermeter, since he was not allowed to forbid any reasonable test t

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is ex

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

"Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated." 'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, an

RE: [Vo]: About the March test

From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling "franchises" to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on "secret" customers and "secret" experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

David Roberson said:  "The problem is that the bar can always be raised higher when one is seeking proof of a system.  Maybe I am wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that there is virtually no test that Rossi could perform which would not afford those who seek misconduct an avenue of attack. 

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I'll summarize the multiple emails, since I certainly don't want to "flood" the channel by responding to each email individually. Regarding the meter:  Both the instruction manual and Mats Lewan (through an email from the manufacturer) verifies that the meter DOES NOT measure DC current.  There

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Sent directly by accident! Sorry about this.] John Milstone > wrote: It wouldn't have found the fraud in the "cheese" videos. But as I pointed out, anyone who strips the wire to measure voltage would spot this instantly, and there is no doubt they stripp

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Sent directly by accident!] John Milstone > wrote: Have you tried your model with what I think is the most likely method of fraud: running full current through the supposedly "dead" 3rd phase wire? The power meter would detect this. All of the wires

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Sent directly by accident!] I wrote: When something like this happens normally, it is a mistake, not a deliberate effort at fraud. This would be a very dangerous mistake. I mean that when a wire which is supposed to be dead actually carries current, that is dangerous. That sort of thin

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

atts * 1.0). This would produce an apparent COP of 2.5 (avg 666 Watts vs avg 266 Watts), which is just what the testers reported. John From: Alan Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test >

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I just restarted my system, so my mailbox sorting reset itself -- and didn't note that this was an old (May) thread. Still applies, though. - Original Message - > > From: "Andrew" > > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM > > > > > 2. The report shows the device temperature varying

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

> From: "Andrew" > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM > > 2. The report shows the device temperature varying synchronously, up > to a small phase lag, with the pulses. This is expected behaviour. The general fluctuation is expected, but the SHAPE of the curve is consistent only with a TRIAN

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I am not acknowledging any such thing - yet :). That's because I don't know what's going on during the pulse OFF time, which is 66% of

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

elivered during OFF time. It seems clear that during ON time the device behaves just like an electrical resistor. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Yes,

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

: [Vo]: About the March test Sure, I completely understand that the calculated COP in the report is wholly due to the 35% duty cycle. But this misses my point. Let me say it again: If input and output power are equal, then there is no energy generation by the device itself. Andrew

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to the peak duty cycled drive when the COP is 3 and the duty

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

I agree with that! First MIT attempt at Rossi Reactor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBy01pgJrEo&feature=youtube_gdata_player On Monday, May 27, 2013, David Roberson wrote: > A little humor never hurts! The bottom line is that the average power > being emitted by the ECAT must be equal to th

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

, 2013 1:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test You have stopped processing information and now are talking about bullfrogs. When you return from bullfrog land, we might be able to resume a serious dialogue. Until then, have a hoppingly great time. - Original Message - From

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I read that section and found that this is not a problem. The input is applied for 1/3 of the time while the average output is roughly equal to that value. The calculation shows that the COP is therefore approximately 3

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted Power E-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power Consumption E-Cat HT2 = (920 – 110) [W ]= 810 [W] (25) - Original Message - From

[Vo]: About the March test

server seems stuck. resending - Original Message - From: Andrew To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test p22. Emitted PowerE-Cat HT2 = (741.3 + 17 + 58) [W] = (816.3± 2%) [W] = (816±16) [W] (24) Instantaneous Power

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Where does this statement appear? I suspect that you are misreading. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I continue to be worried about the fact that the input and output power are measured

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric, The idea here is that the extras (DC and/or RF) are undetectable to the meter using clamp ammeters (we know this for a fact), and when this extra gets passed on to the control

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

system. Dave -Original Message- From: Andrew To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Eric makes a good point though. It therefore looks like there exist at least two separate mains outlets in the lab - one being 3-phase for the experiment

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

, because at the power levels being pumped in the experiment, single-phase mains is wholly adequate, up to a few kilowatts. Andrew - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test A

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

correction in a modern application once the dust settles. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

s, aren't I? :) Andrew - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew wrote: B) seems unlikely because it would require batte

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Message- From: Andrew To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: [Vo]: About the March test I need to summarise my factoids on this test in one place, as opposed to the scattered remarks I've made thus far. I'm focusing here on the pulsed regime, which constituted t

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andrew wrote: ** > B) seems unlikely because it would require batteries, and Hartman states > that it was much lighter than that. Battery technology does not exist that > could be that light, and/or occupy so little volume, and make up that total > energy differen

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

The input reading is from the wall plug. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]: About the March test

I need to summarise my factoids on this test in one place, as opposed to the scattered remarks I've made thus far. I'm focusing here on the pulsed regime, which constituted the bulk of the test time. 1. There exists controversy as to where exactly the power measurements were made. Was it on the