I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood Duncan's "diode fudge".
The control box is quite capable of switching diodes in and out of circuit,
synchronously with the power pulses. Although you're not allowed to look inside
the control box (this will reveal the secret waveform? there's another curious
assertion!) and directly view any diodes there, in principle this fudge is
detectable on the control box input with a scope. But not with an AC clamp
ammeter.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of
the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already
mentioned, if there's any power being "snuck in", it would have to be occuring
during the pulse OFF state - i.e. 65% of the cycle time.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
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
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
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.
