PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[TinselKoala]

@.99: thanks!
@Mags: Data sheets won't have a range, but generally the LED will have a specified output listed at one stated current. Some give this brightness figure in Watts of optical power as measured by an optical wattmeter, others will give a brightness in Candela or Lumens, but always at a specified current. So this gives you your "absolute" calibration point.
It's important to realize the difference between "brightness", which is a sensation ( like sound volume) , and light output power, which is a physical value (like sound amplitude). So "twice as bright" visually might not mean "twice as much power". This is why I suggested a psychophysical calibration as well as the PV instrumental one.
You are right that this method is "fraught", as someone once said.... there are pitfalls, and it's not the way I'd measure the power myself... I'd use something like the Clarke-Hess power meter.... it's just sitting over there gathering dust right now. But I realize that I'm luckier than the average bear, to have kit like that to grub around with.

@ both of you: thanks for the excellent discussion about you-know-who on OUR. I wasn't aware that the situation was nearly as bad as it is until I got caught up on your work there.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@ both of you: thanks for the excellent discussion about you-know-who on OUR. I wasn't aware that the situation was nearly as bad as it is until I got caught up on your work there.

TK - so cryptic?      Can you enlighten us on what discussion between Mags and Poynty Point.  I've just dipped in there and I see no discussions at all?  Do let us know.  I think all the readers here would enjoy some elaboration.

Regards,
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

I think YOU, Rosemary, are the one who would like elaboration. Everybody else reading here has had about all the elaboration about you that they need. Perhaps you would like to explain to Professor Jones how you go about calculating the output energy, compared to the battery's capacity, for your circuit that you think qualifies for his prize. Just repeat the calculation that you posted last week and explain it.
NO--- on second thought you had better not, we don't want this thread to be shut down too.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think YOU, Rosemary, are the one who would like elaboration. Everybody else reading here has had about all the elaboration about you that they need. Perhaps you would like to explain to Professor Jones how you go about calculating the output energy, compared to the battery's capacity, for your circuit that you think qualifies for his prize. Just repeat the calculation that you posted last week and explain it.
NO--- on second thought you had better not, we don't want this thread to be shut down too.

Hello TK.  Thanks for bringing this up.  Yes, indeed.  I'd be delighted to repeat the offer.  Here's the link to my blogspot
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/255-challenge.html

And here's the substance
This is my challenge to Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones.

We are more than willing to engage in a test that will be designed to compare comparative 'draw down rates' between our own test and a control.  Of the 9 batteries that we started with we only have 6 remaining that have not been recharged through standard conventional recharging methods.  We will use those batteries - 3 applied to the control and 3 applied to our own circuit.  The heat dissipated at the loads of both the control and our experiment will be as close as dammit. We will then monitor the voltages of both tests until the one or the other battery bank has discharged to 10 volts.  Then we will RECHARGE both batteries - through standard conventional recharging methods - to a full state of charge.  Then we will SWAP those batteries.  The control batteries will now be used for our test.  The test batteries will be applied to the control.  We will rerun those tests.  We will carefully monitor their voltages until one or other of those sets of batteries discharges to 10 volts.

With the caveat - that this test carries the open and acknowledged acceptance that this proof will be considered definitive - by not less than 2 academics (our own esteemed Professor Jones, excepted as he has a vested interest in the outcome).  Then we will be able to organise some means of securing that the test results cannot be tampered with - possibly by including a 3rd academic from this end.

Now again to the claim.  We are able to generate a continual current flow that is enabled during the period that our battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  It results in a negative wattage that has no relevance to known physical paradigms.  At its least it points to the existence of an alternate energy supply from the circuit material.  We have resolved this by proposing that magnetic fields comprise tachyons that structure themselves in fields, along Faraday's Lines of Force.  This would have the further merit of resolving Quantum and Classical dichotomies and is in line with proposals advanced by our String Theorists.

Should Professor Jones not be able to rally the required academics - then I put it to you all, that there is an impassable hurdle to over unity claims - when our esteemed and revered are not prepared to evaluate the evidence. It means that they've committed the unpardonable disgrace against the noble art of science - which FIRST AND FOREMOST requires theory to be PROVED OR DISPROVED against experimental evidence. And ever thereafter it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to salvage their own credibility.  All those who work for evidence of over unity will then be entirely justified in denying them the respect that is ONLY afforded to SCIENCE.  You cannot claim to be a scientist without acknowledging that experimental evidence TRUMPS theory.

And with the utmost respect to Poynty Point and his minions - LET ME ASSURE YOU - that while your vaunted prize is MOST desirable - it would hardly compensate for the required acknowledgement by our experts. Because without that acknowledgement then our science CANNOT be progressed. Which is why the test REQUIRES academic engagement.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this post copy should more or less cover that math error and get to the object of that mission of mine related to our prize challenge.  LOL.  Hopefully Professor will forgive you this diversion that you've demanded - away from his thread topic.

Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

And here we have a sample of Poynty's real genius which is to POYNT at anything and everything that is ENTIRELY irrelevant. ... or is that tangential?  Can never remember.  Either way - those 'poynters' of his are rather too nominal...  Therefore?  I rest my case.  I'm not sure who else commented.  Mainly because I really don't care enough.  But ...I've had my first real laugh both at my own adventurous reach into elementary mathematics and your own transparent need to refer to this and nothing else.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If I didn't know better - I'd be inclined to think that you didn't like me any more than you like our technology.  Fortunately I know this isn't the case.

Anyway lest I entirely lose my ... - then let me re-iterate.  Or rather. Let Poynty 're-iterate'.  It's a refreshing example of his 'courtesy' which is also lacking in 'parts'.

Quote from: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 06:23:12 AM
TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!

And here's my answer.  AGAIN.

My dear Poynty Point,

.   If you're referring to the battery draw down test - then may I refer you to my 'conditions'.
.   If you're referring to a demonstration of the tests included in our paper - GLADLY.  Just nominate the venue.
.   If you're referring to that absurd test related to 'lights' and what have you - then 'NO'.

But only because a far more significant variation has been done.  And it resulted in the a single row of LED's STAYING LIT.  And draw your own conclusions from this.  They none of them will conform to standard prediction.

Kindest regards,
... etc
I edited out a few rather obscure inferences.
R.