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 <andrew...@att.net> 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 <andrew...@att.net> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *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 <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *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 <andrew...@att.net> 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. > >
