Testing the TK Tar Baby

[polln8r]

Hearing things over and over and over and over...
Edited to substitute a link to the animated .gif
surprised I can make this change, after this much time.
http://imageshack.us/a/img21/9339/brokenrecordm.gif

[TinselKoala]

@.99

You might try poynting out to Ms NoCalculus that her "vi dt" reduces to V x Idt, since V is a constant in the INput case.

Perhaps the "public confession" of gmeast's error that she is thinking of is the one where he realized that you don't divide by three, you divide by four. But of course he never actually acknowledged that he did the exact error that Ainslie illustrated and acknowledged was an error, in your example.
Relevant images of posts attached below.... since the actual posts are missing.

[poynt99]

TK,

Yeah I am aware of those 'admissions', as ambiguous as they are. But ultimately he never admitted that the correct Pin is 10.5W for his circuit, and that is the bottom line. Rose agreed with and duplicated his erroneous computation, therefore she too is incorrect.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Yeah I am aware of those 'admissions', as ambiguous as they are. But ultimately he never admitted that the correct Pin is 10.5W for his circuit, and that is the bottom line. Rose agreed with and duplicated his erroneous computation, therefore she too is incorrect.

Yep, exactly, except that in the recent exchange I think Ainslie was actually illustrating the error, not actually making it in her replies to you. She got the right answer to your sample problem, and then also illustrated how it can be incorrectly calculated (using gmeast's method). Thus, she should be able to see that gmeast has done the same thing that she agrees is an error, in the imaged post above. But neither she nor gmeast have explicitly done so. They just removed the entire error-filled posts and gmeast blithely throws out the entire methodology without justification... other than that it gives him answers he doesn't like.

And I actually do not think that Ainslie can follow the math that gmeast used in the imaged post above, well enough to find the error.  You might be able to step her through it one tiny step at a time, but she manages to put a foot wrong even with tiny steps, so I dunno.

No, I never saw any admission or correction of his input power values either, just the admission that his "divide by three" version of a 25 percent duty cycle was wrong. I never saw him correct or acknowledge the major error of putting the duty cycle in twice, nor did he publicly correct the numbers he cited so publicly and enthusiastically. He would have to admit that his circuit is not overunity if he did that! Much better to remove the entire record of the issue and toss out the method entirely with the claim that it's invalid....
(It was valid as long as it produced OU results, though, wasn't it, gmeast and Ainslie.... it only became invalid when it showed that the circuit is NOT overunity in its performance.)

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie said,

Poynty - I KNOW what you're getting to.  Who would NOT?  Here's the thing...

          5 Amps - 5 minutes
          0 Amps - 5 minutes
          ________________
          = 0.25 Amps per every 10 minutes.

.99 said:
>

Correct Rose. You agree then that the average current is 0.25 Amperes. And you would also agree that the average current would be 0.125 Amperes if the switch was ON for 2.5 minutes, and OFF for 7.5 minutes, correct?

And I don't get this. How do you arrive at 0.25 amps as an average current here, if your input current is 5 amps at a duty cycle of 50 percent?

Ah... I see it now. It's another "mindreading" typo error from Ainslie.... she should have "0.5" amps where she has "5" amps. This is why LEADING ZEROS before a decimal point are indeed important. You read her mind successfully and realized she meant one-tenth of what she actually wrote. Silly me.... I just see what's actually written, and I see that 5 amps at a duty cycle of 50 percent gives me 2.5 amps average, not 0.25 amps.