On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed > the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input > power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power. > > I mentioned the temperature modulation in the post you're replying to. It's clear that the power to the ecat is modulated at the claimed cycle frequency. That doesn't mean it has to switch to zero during the off portion. It could also be higher during the on portion. The light bulb in the cheese video was not the same brightness in both modes either. That can probably by tailored. Why would you suggest that the power duty cycle might be much larger during > this test with the obvious picture evidence pointing otherwise? > It's not obvious at all.There is no indication the power to the ecat drops to zero during the off state. Someone could pull the plug during the 4 minute off states and see if the temperature drop is the same or different. I was beginning to think that you were being objective by your response to > the thermal camera issue and I had a hope that you would carry forth with > this newly found impartiality. Is it difficult for you to agree with > obvious evidence if it does not match your theory of the world? > > I just need good evidence, and I haven't seen it yet. The alternative explanations for this secret experiment are all far more likely than cold fusion. Some say you'll come to understand that as well. > Can we count on you to be objective? > > Do bears shit in the woods?
