Finally, a direct answer to a simple question. Although you still leave it up to me to interpret the response. Unless you say otherwise, I now accept that you do not believe that there is any level of internally generated heat being released during this test series.
With this position, it is apparent that you assume that some form of magic trick is being conducted and hence the lack of belief that the device functions. This is a valid position to begin with, but you need to look at the evidence and should be willing to change your beliefs at some point. Is there any level of evidence that will cause you to change your opinion? What would need to be done? I have a suspicion that it will require you being there during the test before your mind will change, is that true? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@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 or no? Read the reply again, with particular attention to the first word. I would have thought that elaboration was a good way to advance the discussion, but apparently you prefer a kind of cross-examination to a discussion. I don't claim to be certain of anything, but I am highly skeptical of a COP > 1, though there might be some amount of chemical heat produced in that cylinder. -----Original Message----- 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.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 3. That means that even if the claim is right, it's far from ready for industrialization, given that electricity is produced with 1/3 efficiency. So, as I said, I hardly think he's looking at the final version of the power supply when the ecat is still completely inadequate. And so this excuse for using 3-phase is as much nonsense as all the other excuses with sub-gauss and sub mK magnetic field and temperature oscillations.
