For the purposes of collaborative dynamics modeling, it would be better to use:
http://insightmaker.com/ On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > So, do you need help with that spice model? The remainder of your > discussion is nothing more than using words to avoid the issue. It would > take you less time to perform the spice experiment than to write a million > words that prove nothing. > > You wrote a large number of unsubstantiated and untrue statements which I > want to take apart one by one. It takes far too much time and is frankly > boring to the other members of vortex to respond with the volume of > material needed to rebut each one. That is why I ask you to concentrate > upon one of your choice. Is that asking too much? > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a >> few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal >> rectification changes the power delivered to it. > > > You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've > already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True > believers insist on an explanation of how deception might explain the > alleged observations, but do not hold themselves to the same standard to > give an explanation for how nuclear reactions could be initiated in those > circumstances, or how they could produce that much heat without radiation, > or how NiH could produce 100 times the power density of nuclear fuel > without melting, regardless of what produces the energy. That doesn't > stop you from believing it happens though. > > There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know > how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, > and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception > on Rossi's part is far more likely than cold fusion. > > Most people looking at the cheese power video could not prove there was > a trick from the video alone, and especially not from a paper written to > describe the experiment, by people who actually believed in cheese power. > But that doesn't mean they would not be nearly certain there is one. > > And it would be easy for anyone with elementary knowledge of electricity > to set up an experiment to demonstrate cheese-power unequivocally, if it > were real. Likewise, the same could be done for the ecat. But when they use > 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in place ahead of time, > when close associates choose the instruments which are completely > inadequate, when the blank run uses different conditions, when the input > timing is determined from a video tape, when the COP just happens to equal > the reciprocal of the duty cycle, when the power supply box is off-limits, > and the power measurements are restricted, and when the claim is as > unlikely as cheese-power, it is ok to be suspicious. > > > > > > > >> You will fail miserably I assure you! You love to make unsupported >> statements and then fail to do any of the simple tests required to clear up >> your misunderstanding. I have waited a long time for you or Andrew or >> Duncan to make that spice model that will demonstrate that what I say is >> accurate. I will be happy to help you set up a model that will take >> perhaps 15 minutes of your time to run. If you do not know how to makes >> such a model then you should remove yourself from this discussion since >> that would demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: >> >>> I thought that the DC issue was put to rest. >>> >> >> Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they >> excluded it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they >> say without scrutiny, then why bother reading the paper at all? Just accept >> their conclusions and rejoice. >> >> Except that Essen said of the steam tests that the steam was dry based >> on a visual inspection, and then based on a measurement with a relative >> humidity probe. So, I'm not prepared to accept his claim at face value. And >> even if his measurements do exclude dc in the exposed conductors, I'm not >> prepared to accept that a concealed conductor was not there. >> >> There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know >> how it might have been done. But I know there was a rat's nest of wires, >> and an unnecessarily complex method of supplying power, and that deception >> on Rossi's part is far more likely than the sort of power density they >> claim without melting, let alone a nuclear reaction. >> >> >>> It can be easily shown that there is not amount of diode trickery which >>> can be put into the control box that will confuse the primary power >>> measurement. >>> >> >> >> I don't agree. Just because you or I can't think of diode trickery >> doesn't mean it's not possible. You or I can't think of any nuclear >> reactions to explain the results either, but that doesn't seem to convince >> you that it's not possible. You should keep an open mind to possibilities >> you have not thought of. >> >> >> >>> DC input has been eliminated so that is not an issue due to direct >>> observation by one or more of the test personnel. >>> >> >> >> Except we don't know the observation, so it's not convincing. >> >> >>> >>> There is noting left to clarify as far as the input is concerned. >>> >> >> Manipulation of the mains line is a far smaller perturbation than used >> in many similar scale scams. Concealed conductors can make the current look >> like it's zero, or could carry dc or high frequency power. >> >> >> >>> And you also agree that duty cycle operation is obvious by output >>> waveform picture review. >>> >> >> No. I disagreed with that at least 3 times. Maybe you missed them. >> >> I don't see your problem here. Yes, the modulation of the temperature >> is consistent with the modulation of the input, but it says nothing about >> the actual power level in the alleged off part of the cycle. The claim is >> that the ecat is sustained in the off-cycle, so the decay curve is >> consistent with the total power *not* going to zero. All the skeptics are >> claiming is that you'd get the same thing if the input drops to the same >> level as the level the ecat is claimed to be producing by itself during the >> off cycle. And that could be done using the cheese power method with a >> voltage divider or a variac or something. >> >> I'm not saying that's how it was done. I'm saying that the >> unnecessarily indirect output measurement, the unnecessarily complex input >> supply and the inadequate input measurement, and the blank that was run >> under different conditions, makes the entire operation suspicious and >> leaves possibilities for deception. I just don't believe someone who >> actually had an energy source with MJ+/g, that could produce hundreds of >> watts at a COP of 3, would demonstrate in this way. It could be made so >> much better. And so I remain skeptical. When nothing comes of this in a >> year, will you be a little more skeptical? >> >> >> >>> The viewed duty cycle matches that stated within the report. Anyone >>> that suggests a cheese power type scam is not looking at the evidence. >>> >>> >> >> It matches the frequency. Anyone who suggests the evidence proves it >> goes to zero in the off-cycle does not understand the evidence. Cheese >> power is far more likely than nickel powder with a power density 100 times >> that of uranium in a fission reactor, let alone than the possibility of >> nuclear reactions in that context. >> >> >> >>> Any RF power input would cause serious disruption of the test reading >>> with any change of position of the probes. If that is not seen, the scope >>> would have detected it. >>> >> >> >> Essen said they did not use a scope, and I'm not convinced it would >> affect meters that have a limited response in the 60 Hz range. >> >> >> >>> It is time for the skeptics to leave this poor horse alone. >>> >>> >> >> Many people suspected James Ernst Worrell Keely of fraud and deception, >> but no one knew exactly how he did it, and his supporters dismissed the >> skeptics. After his death, a most elaborate and complex series of hidden >> devices were found below the floors and behind walls and so on. >> >> There are many more recent examples as well such as Madison Priest and >> Stoern and Papp and so on. This sort of thing is utterly common, but the >> claimed scientific revolution is rare indeed. >> >> And all of this is independent of how much you want it to be true. >> >> >>> >
