another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now clearly you must have gone to some considerable lengths to find some internet examples of this sorely ABUSED terminology.  So.  Let's see what they say.  The first is an article by Rod Elliott who in this link http://sound.westhost.com/efficiency.htm states...

'We will start with the assumption that the transistors in Figure 1 are 'ideal', in that there is no base current needed (they have infinite gain), and no voltage at all is lost when fully conducting.  The bias voltage is adjusted so that the transistors are exactly on the verge of conduction, but no quiescent current flows. Given that the supply voltage is +/-20V, this allows a peak swing into an ideal 8 Ohm resistive load of 20 Volts, which is an RMS voltage of 14.14V.  The peak current is 20/8, or 2.5 Amps, and this equates to 1.768 Amps RMS.  The power to the load is 25 Watts.

P = V * I     or ...
P = V² / R     or ...
P = I² * R

Where P = power in Watts, V = voltage, I = current, and R = resistance.  Voltage and current are RMS.  Note that the term "RMS Power" is erroneous - power is the result of RMS voltage and RMS current applied to a load, and is measured in Watts.  Although "RMS power" is not real, it has become accepted to mean that RMS voltage and RMS current were used to measure the power."

You notice that he first gives a schematic that locates the position of OUT AND IN - clearly - on a circuit.  Then he takes the trouble to define his terms.  He clarifies his argument.  He states, unequivocally that what he is referencing as P or Power is ACTUALLY Watts.  You need to follow his good example.  Which means that IF you really need to promote those eccentric terms of POUT AND PIN - that you FIRST show where - on your schematic - you refer to 'out' and 'in'.  And then - following the good example of Mr Elliott - you then explain that by P you actually mean to represent WATTS.  Who could argue with that?  I know I couldn't.

Notice too that he states 'power is the result of RMS voltage and RMS current applied to a load, and is measured in Watts'.  Again.  Who's arguing?  Those units of watts over time is the measure of power.  vi dt.  BUT PLEASE NOTE.  Power is NOT watts.  It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME.

By the way - I've again scanned that document.  I see absolutely NO reference to POUT OR PIN.  He does, in his table, have a heading Pout and Pin - if that's what you're relying on?  Not sure?  But IF this is it - then, indeed, there is no evident misuse of anything at all.  I do hope you see this Poynty Point.  HE'S DEPARTED FROM CONVENTIONAL USES OF A TERMINOLOGY AND THEREFORE HE FIRST DEFINED HIS TERMS

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now to the second example.  Not sure of the author but here's the link http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html.  And here's the extract...

"Electrical motor efficiency is the ratio between the       shaft output power - and the electrical nput power. Electrical Motor Efficiency when Shaft Output is measured in Watt If power output is measured in Watt (W), efficiency_m =  P_out / P_in             (1)
where
η_m = motor efficiency
P_out = shaft power out (Watt, W)
P_in = electric power in to the motor (Watt, W)"

No need to go into this in great detail as it's just more of the same.  Clear definitions.  Shows what he means by in and what he means by out and what he's referring to which is the use of P here represented in watts.  All entirely acceptable.  It all conforms to the requirement for perfect clarity.

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

NOW.  To wiki in this link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency  This was more confusing.  Here the term power is NOT defined - but there's a diagram to the left of that page that shows what is meant by 'out' and 'in'.  In any event - here's what it states.

"Energy conversion efficiency is not defined uniquely, but instead depends on the usefulness of the output. All or part of the heat produced from burning a fuel may become rejected waste heat if, for example, work is the desired output from a thermodynamic cycle.  Even though the definition includes the notion of usefulness, efficiency is considered a technical or physical term. Goal or mission oriented terms include effectiveness and efficacy.

Generally, energy conversion efficiency is a dimensionless number between 0 and 1.0, or 0 to 100%. Efficiencies may not exceed 100%, e.g., for a perpetual motion machine. However, other effectiveness measures that can exceed 1.0 are used for heat pumps and other devices that move heat rather than convert it.

When talking about the efficiency of heat engines and power stations the convention should be stated, i.e., HHV (aka Gross Heating Value etc.) or LCV (aka Net Heating value), and whether gross output (at the generator terminals) or net output (at the power station fence) are being considered. The two are separate but both must be stated. Failure to do so causes endless confusion."


It says absolutely NOTHING about the use of Pout and Pin other than it's use relates to a measure of energy efficiencies.  So.  I'm not sure that's clarified anything at all.

R   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

THEREFORE, Poynty Point, I would suggest that your first two examples show us all a perfect use of scientific terminologies where those terms are first defined with impeccable clarity.  The more so when they're used outside their standard applications.  Always a good reach.  Wiki's definitions are a bit thin at this stage.  But no doubt someone will attend to it in due course.

If you - in the same way - could follow in the footsteps of those two early examples and DEFINE your terms then I'm reasonably satisfied that there is no-one in their right mind who could object.  What I've pointed out is that YOU DO NOT DEFINE ANYTHING AT ALL.  You reference OUT and IN without clear schematic explanations - and then you proceed to refer to POUT AND PIN and show us a computation in WATTS.  I put it to you AGAIN - that it is a travesty on conventional practice and it is an ABUSE of scientific terminologies as it is simply NOT CLEAR and and it most certainly is NOT standard practice.

But that was only one of the MANY objections that I listed.  Do I need to repeat them again.  Or are you going to address all salient points?   Here's a reminder of some of them.

May I remind you Curious Christopher - that Poynty Point has replicated our experiment on his own simulation program.  That he saw precisely the same results.  And that he then proceeded to amass the most curious analysis that has ever confronted standard physics and conventional thinking - by seriously proposing to multiply a positive voltage - with a negative voltage to substantiate what was meant to be an outright refutation of that proof.  And NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, confronted him with any arguments against those utterly fallacious conclusions.  THEN.  As if that was not enough - he proceeded to endorse, allow and even engage in the most serious exercise in slander that has ever disgraced these forums.  Nor would I have done anything EXCEPT THAT he then also encouraged a renewed attack on yet another hopeful experimentalist.  That he ignored the evidence of Rossi's extraordinary technology and yet will engage in these facile attempts at pack hunting claimants as his daily forum diet was actually more than I could stomach. I decided - FOR ONCE - to challenge him on his own grounds.  And that challenge still holds.  Clearly he is unable to answer it.  I can stomach any personal insults.  But I most certainly will NOT allow his continuing agenda to deny evidence in the face of that evidence.  If he is seriously looking for OU - then ARGUE OUR CLAIM.  We have measured proof.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Bubba1]

Those units of watts over time is the measure of power.  vi dt.  BUT PLEASE NOTE.  Power is NOT watts.  It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME....

.99 is right:  "you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements".

Power IS watts.  Watts over time is the measure of ENERGY.