Testing the TK Tar Baby

[evolvingape]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Data sharing

"Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."


In the spirit of open source I am convinced Rosemary would be willing to release the hundreds and hundreds of scope shots that she has stored in her private collection, never made available for public review.

RM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OK - here's the thing.

IF the battery was delivering 20 watts and that was to be taken as a representative sample of the energy delivered by the battery then it would need to be delivering that amount of energy continuously - for the duration of each duty cycle.  Then - without interruption - there would be 20 watts delivered by the battery during the ENTIRE duty cycle.

HOWEVER.  It does not.  I delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle.  Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle.  Assume then that in that brief 1/6th of that specific period of time it was heating the element to the full extent of all of those 20 watts.  Then during 5/6ths of that same cycle when NO ENERGY was being delivered then it would, self-evidently be COOLING DOWN - because there was and is no further application of heat.  Then it again delivers 20 watts and then cools down - and so on.  In order to determine the ACTUAL energy INCLUDING the period when that energy transfer was interrupted - it would need to be determined over the time period when it was both ON and OFF.  Which is closer to 3.33 watts.   

That's it folks.  That's the whole of TK's argument which is PATENTLY and BLANTANTLY wrong.  And if you've bought into this EvolvingApe - then you too have been duped.  And this is YET another example of TK's misdirections.  Sadly - I think he's convinced himself that he's even got an argument.  More's the pity.  But it's certainly in keeping with this thread standard.

Rosie Posie

[fuzzytomcat]

OK guys,

This is the entire PROOF required that we are no longer talking science.  And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model - nor established measurement protocols - nor anything at all that is even half way relevant to power analysis.  And this post can be dismissed in its entirety.  And for those of you who KNOW power analysis - then this is really as far as any of you need go to see that TK is on a MISSION.  And that mission has NOTHING to do with science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model

What "standard" Model ??

[fuzzytomcat]

I am very interested in discussing our technology.  The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper.  There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model.  And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence.  It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity.  Me.  I'm Mrs Average.  And good science NEVER needs more than that.   I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us.  We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak. 

Rosie Pose

There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model.

What "standard" model ??

[picowatt]

OK - here's the thing.

IF the battery was delivering 20 watts and that was to be taken as a representative sample of the energy delivered by the battery then it would need to be delivering that amount of energy continuously - for the duration of each duty cycle.  Then - without interruption - there would be 20 watts delivered by the battery during the ENTIRE duty cycle.

HOWEVER.  It does not.  I delivers 20 watts during 1 sixth of the cycle.  Then it delivers NOTHING during another 5/6ths of each cycle.  Assume then that in that brief 1/6th of that specific period of time it was heating the element to the full extent of all of those 20 watts.  Then during 5/6ths of that same cycle when NO ENERGY was being delivered then it would, self-evidently be COOLING DOWN - because there was and is no further application of heat.  Then it again delivers 20 watts and then cools down - and so on.  In order to determine the ACTUAL energy INCLUDING the period when that energy transfer was interrupted - it would need to be determined over the time period when it was both ON and OFF.  Which is closer to 3.33 watts.   

That's it folks.  That's the whole of TK's argument which is PATENTLY and BLANTANTLY wrong.  And if you've bought into this EvolvingApe - then you too have been duped.  And this is YET another example of TK's misdirections.  Sadly - I think he's convinced himself that he's even got an argument.  More's the pity.  But it's certainly in keeping with this thread standard.

Rosie Posie

Nobody said that 20 watts was being dissipated during the entire cycle.

20 watts is being dissipated during the portion of the cycle that the FG output is a positive voltage in the 'scope shot being discussed.  That is an obvious FACT.

It is also an obvious FACT that this contributes approx 3.3 watts to the total dissipation when averaged over the entire cycle.

The power drawn during the other 84% of the cycle must also be added to the 3.3W for the total average dissipation.

Seems like arguing is now just for the sake of arguing.

PW

ADDED:  And most of that 20 watts is beng wasted/dissipated as heat by Q1.