-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
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 dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Josh, your entire theory
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
No reason for any of your issues is given except that there is no reason
that you are aware of to do what makes sense to most other engineers and
scientists on the list.
3-phase is not needed. He ran higher power
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I admit that I do not believe that the magnetic field is important in this
case.
I am very pleased to see that some progress is being made.
It is not too close to zero with this particular geometry
Well, the
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback,
which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires
following a line of reasoning.
Wrong discussion. The question of COP
@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 7:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Why not give a direct answer to a direct question. Do you agree that the COP
is greater than 1? Yes
]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:52:07 AM
Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the
axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Levi didn't provide pictures of the resistors, but it's reasonable to
assume that they had the same structure as showed by Penon.
http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
The resistors are
19:38
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
OK -- in fig 6 (Dec) they show a blue-and-yellow CONTROL box and three
triacs.
They don't have a picture for March, so we don't know if it includes the
functionality of the blue-and-yellow box or just replaces the triac.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications.
It's not gonna be useful for industrial purposes with a COP of 3; remember
the electricity was made with an efficiency of 1/3. It's gonna have to be
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
There are advantages to using a three phase power input that have been
pointed out.
For this application, the disadvantages are greater.
Measurements of 3 phase systems are done every day so this is not
important.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going
to
care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the
axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero
outside a solenoid, except at the ends.
The magnetic field outside a
hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
My guess is that he is designing for industrial applications.
It's not gonna be useful for industrial purposes with a COP of 3; remember
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:26 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote
much
like a bar magnet. This is simple for you to study and realize your
mistake.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:32 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 3:32 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with
the
axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com 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
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Every one of the points you make are pure speculation. There is
absolutely no evidence that Rossi is using 3 phase power to conduct any
scam.
Right but all the excuses for why he might need them are pure speculation,
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids
Josh. Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much
like a bar magnet. This is simple for you to study and realize your
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
If he does not know such a simple thing, I think he can be safely ignored
No one's holding a gun to your head.
regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com 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
-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Every one of the points you make are pure speculation. There is absolutely no
evidence
hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:52 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I suggest that you study the magnetic fields associated with solenoids Josh.
Obviously you must not realize that they have an external field much like a bar
magnet
to a mutual understanding. or, agree to disagree.
-Mark Iverson
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
Why not give a direct answer
From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:52:07 AM
Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with the
axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero
outside a solenoid, except at the ends.
The magnetic field
-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 10:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:52:07 AM
Good grief. The resistors are coils
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact I said the 3-phase input to the box was particularly unnecessary
*because* only single-phase was used for the box.
There are legitimate reasons to prefer 3-phase input. If the output
of the control box is a
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Eric/JC:
I've read the report twice fully, and a few other times only to verify a
specific statement.
I still did not catch the significance that it was the output of the
control
box that was changed from 3ph to
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:38:17 AM
The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
Gee .. I'd better take my Electric clothes dryer in for de-obfuscating.
And there I was thinking it was trapped lint.
You want lots of power, you go straight to
Hi,
On 30-5-2013 20:15, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:38:17 AM
The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. This is a test rig he's
using, so of course it's
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:38:17 AM
The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
Gee .. I'd better take my Electric clothes dryer in for de-obfuscating.
And there I was
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:44:00 AM
You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase.
Right, but I thought the ecat was supposed to provide the lots of
power.
Of THERMAL power, yes, not of ELECTRICAL power.
They *changed* the power
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:44:00 AM
You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase.
Right, but I thought the ecat was supposed to provide the lots of
power.
Of
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:16:19 PM
The paper says they *replaced* the triac with a control box.
OK -- in fig 6 (Dec) they show a blue-and-yellow CONTROL box and three triacs.
They don't have a picture for March, so we don't know if it includes
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me.
Gee .. I'd better take my Electric clothes dryer in for de-obfuscating.
And there I was thinking it was trapped lint.
That's hilarious!
You want lots of power, you go straight to three-phase. This is a
go no further with this
argument.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Berke
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going to
care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface.
The reactor might require or might be incompatible with low-frequency AC
magnetic
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
You left out the more important part of my posting:
“And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:39 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Eric, I agree with what Mark is saying.
You agree with him that 3-phase was not used in the March run when the
paper says a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output.
I never claimed
Joshua Cude wrote:
...I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box.
They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement
is made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a
In fact I said the 3-phase input to the box was particularly unnecessary
*because* only single-phase was used for the box.
There are legitimate reasons to prefer 3-phase input. If the output
of the control box is a pulse width-modulated DC signal, then you need
a high-power DC source.
There
Hi,
On 29-5-2013 16:47, Berke Durak wrote:
Using three phases you can get DC with decent ripple using only a
handful of diodes. The power never goes to zero, whereas it would go
to zero 100 times a second if you were using a full-wave rectifier
with single-phase input. If the peak power
cycle. This is an interesting exercise
for anyone that wants to look into the issue further.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input
From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 8:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
Morning Vorts,
Can I have a little time to look into it?
I do have a life and other
I see a circuit that generates DC with 300 Hz ripple. Good idea, ripple
is so small that many DC loads would need no capacitors at all.
Be interesting to know the wt/power ratio, compared to the usual single
phase and three phase cases.
Ol' Bab
On 5/29/2013 11:05 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote:
Lol.
That's a little bit redonculous. Far more likely: neither he nor I have read
the paper closely enough.
Eric
On May 29, 2013, at 2:02, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Mark was mistaken about this, and his failure to acknowledge it
suggests he is deliberately trying to
, and therefore there is no pattern of misinformation on my part.
-Mark Iverson
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
In Italy they are discussing another hypothesis regarding the input power:
The hypothesis is, that the load (the three inputs of the black box) were
not connected between the phases and neutral, but between the phases. But,
at the same time, the tensions were measured (by error or to mislead)
The correct picture is here:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/18.64.43
If this hypothesis is true, then the question is are the Professors
all of them stupid or criminal?
I see more and more as the partisan fantasy is the best weapon
in the war against an inconvenient reality.
Peter
, 2013 5:50 AM
Subject: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
In Italy they are discussing another hypothesis regarding the input power:
The hypothesis is, that the load (the three inputs of the black box) were not
connected between the phases and neutral
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I said
*The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input
would suffice here, given the power levels.*
There is nothing difficult about measuring 3-phase power. Power
Wasn't there a similar AC power measurement cock-up on a previous 2011 or
2012 Rossi test?
On 28 May 2013 14:56, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I said
*The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
--- On Tue, 5/28/13, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
To: vortex
Yes, triphase is used much in commercial and industrial building, because
it is more efficient to transfer power (less coper, better AC engine)...
Rectifier also are more efficient in triphase (less ripple).
Beside to be clear triphase power meter are roughly simply some Digital
signal processor
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
I said
*The measurement task has been made unnecessarily difficult by
specifying 3-phase input to the control box. Normal single-phase input
would suffice here, given the power
-
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
I said
joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
I said
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Show us some real evidence instead of BS.
How can there be any real evidence of deception when all we have is a paper
with words and pictures, and no way to check their claims?
Incorrect claims in science are
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
There is no way to know why 3 phase power is being used in this situation.
Perhaps the latest design for the complete system that has many units
associated has that requirement.
The assumption
supply for the second test to simplify input power
measurement. and that was done.
-Mark Iverson
From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
The first test used 3-phase power, the second DID NOT.
Good point! The paper says:
The E-Cat HT2's power supply departs from that of the device used in
December in that it is
no longer three-phase, but single-phase: the TRIAC power supply has been
replaced by a
that it is
intentional.
-Mark
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat
test
MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
The first test used 3-phase power, the second
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
You left out the more important part of my posting:
“And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so *
*JC is
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Jed:
** **
You left out the more important part of my posting:
“And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so *
*JC is misleading
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
That was certainly not my intention. My understanding of the part of the
text that Jed quoted (a control circuit having three-phase power input and
single-phase output, ) is that they used 3-phase from the mains to power
their box, which then produced
That sounds like the old Eliza: same core algorithms, it's the dictionary
that is somewhat different.
2013/5/28 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Jed:
** **
You left out the more important part of my posting:
“And JC is WELL aware
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Jed:
** **
You left out the more important part of my posting:
“And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm . . .. For once you may have a point. It is confusing. It is not
clear what's what and where they are measuring.
A schematic would help.
Maybe it's not such a gem after all.
It does seem to say the
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so JC
is misleading people… but he has a very long history of taking some
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
You left out the more important part of my posting:
“And JC is WELL aware of this, yet asks the question as to why they used
3-phase power in their tests… the second test was SINGLE phase power, so *
*JC is
eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 1:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
You left out the more important part of my posting
75 matches
Mail list logo
