Testing the TK Tar Baby

[fuzzytomcat]

Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm.  I was beginning to think that you were deliberately ignoring our claim as you do poor Itseung's.  Anyway.  Let me see if I can put this as clearly as possible - mainly because I think clarity's important.  Wouldn't you agree?

Now.  It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is.  It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.  On other tests we only manage to take the temperature of the element resistor to something that's mildly uncomfortable to the touch.  Not the kind of precision that I suspect you're looking for.  But that's not the thrust of our question.  As mentioned, I'm anxious to find out how you actually calculate the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery.  Here's our problem.  We are applying standard measurement protocols.  And for the life of us we cannot find any evidence of any energy at all - being delivered by those batteries.  Which leaves us with that rather puzzling anomaly of INFINITE COP.  Not  easily explained in terms of the standard model - unless, of course,  there are measurement errors.

WELL.  Here's the thing.  Poynty Point is charging around and advising everyone on my thread on his forum and indeed, on his HATE BLOG - that we - that is all those collaborators to our paper - have no CLUE how to do basic power analysis.  If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  I would modestly propose that he's off his rocker.  But what do I know. So.  What I did - for the most of the day - was speak to whichever academics I could - and I was earnestly advised that INDEED HE IS WRONG.  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak.  Actually that's possibly tautological.      In any event.  You know what I mean.  Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number.  And our claim will be defeated at the get go.  Actually, come to think of it.  ANYONE AT ALL - who ever tries to prove over unity in the future - and under these unconventional measurement conventions - will ALSO, inevitably, be left with something CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN UNITY. 

Please do clarify this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference in hell what the actual amount of heat is.  It's enough to say that we can boil enough water to make about 6 cups of expresso.

Because IF you support his argument then we most certainly DO NOT have that negative wattage number.  And our claim will be defeated at the get go.

[TinselKoala]

AT NO POINT IS THERE the delivery of 20 watts.  There is only the measure of 20 watts over 1/6th of each duty cycle - making it a total of 3.33 watts - AT BEST.

What is the duty cycle, Ainslie? What is the average power over an entire cycle?

And what does your oscilloscope plot, when it plots voltage times current on your math trace? Are you saying that all those points do NOT represent a delivery of whatever that product is, at that instant, as power in Watts? Then you once again are simply, irrefutably WRONG, yet again, and you can ask ANYONE YOU LIKE to explain it to you. How about Peter Lindemann? Or Donovan Martin? Show them the last three pages of this thread and see what THEY tell you.

But you won't. Because you "know" you are right and your ego won't permit you to examine carefully your assumptions.

[poynt99]

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.   

Rosemary,

You are correct, but TK is correct also. The problem is that you are both talking about slightly different power measurements.

Clearly Rosemary, you are referring to AVERAGE POWER. Clearly, TK is referring to INSTANTANEOUS POWER.

Let's look at two scenarios:

1) 20W for 1 second out of 6, then 0W for 5 seconds out of this 6.

2) 3.33W for 6 seconds out of 6.

The AVERAGE POWER over the same 6 second period in both scenarios is 3.33W.

However, in scenario 1), the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second is 20W, while the INSTANTANEOUS POWER at any time within the first second in scenario 2) is 3.33W.

[TinselKoala]

I agree with you that the ON period of the duty cycle is - in fact - closer to 12.5% ON.  In which case that 20 watts dissipated that you calculated needs to be revised downwards to 2.5 watts - is the first point.  NOW.  IF that 20 watts is then NOT applied for the remaining 87.5% of an ensuing period of each duty cycle - HOW THEN DOES THAT ELEMENT RESISTOR CONTINUE TO DISSIPATE 20 watts?  IF our STANDARD PROTOCOLS are even half way correct the assumption is that it does NOT dissipate energy if there is no energy applied.  THEREFORE?  THAT 20 Watts becomes considerably less than 20 watts.  In fact it's reduced by 87.5% less than 20 watts - IN FACT.  Therefore, 20 watts IS NOT dissipated at the element resistor EVER.  ONLY 2.5 watts is dissipated.  That's based YOUR argument.  And I AGREE.  WHOLEHEARTEDLY.   

IF, however, you are arguing that 20 watts is CONTINUALLY BEING DISSIPATED despite the removal of energy during 87.5% of each period of each duty cycle - then I DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.  OR ANY PART OF IT. 

I NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT, AINSLIE, you once again are responding to your delusions rather than to what I said.

And nor would any self-respecting power engineer.  Therefore - IN FACT - at no stage is there the dissipation of 20 watts of energy at that element resistor.

Who ever said that there was? Not me, not PW, nobody. The 20 Watts is dissipated IN THE CIRCUIT ELEMENTS, mostly the mosfet, WHENEVER AND FOR HOWEVER LONG the mosfet Q1 is receiving the +5 volt gate signal.

OR - if there is - THEN it is NOT coming from the ON period of the duty cycle.

Quite apart from which Leon,  we've measured 20 watts of energy applied to the that load - in detailed schedules.  And the temperature at 20 watts is NOWHERE NEAR to the 200 degrees centigrade that we measure as heat on that resistor in our water to boil test.

Rosie Posie

You are arguing with your own hallucinations again, and you aren't making sense. Your temperature measurements are a completely different issue and contain their OWN set of errors.


But I am glad you acknowledge your stupid "3.33" and "1/6" duty cycle error. It's hard to wriggle out of your mistakes when your nose is rubbed into it in public, isn't it. Well, there's a lot more of that coming.

So... we have the concession from AINSLIE that there IS IN FACT 320 mA flowing during the ON phase on that shot, a not insignificant amount at 62 volts potential, contradicting the claim in the blog post and invalidating the conclusion based on it.

AND we have the admission that she calculated the duty cycle incorrectly and used that incorrect figure to come up with the earlier "3.33" Watts average during her mendacious criticism of my CORRECT, entirely correct, power calculations as presented.

Keep it up, Ainslie, you are doing fine.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And the only person who has revealed incompetence and ignorance is YOURSELF. 

Now you can understand why Ainslie refuses to do math on demand. EVERY POST of hers that I can find that includes any calculation with more than two variables and one operation is almost CERTAIN to contain one or more egregious errors, and SHE KNOWS IT.

So she dares not engage in any mathematical discussions. Just as in the present example, she always reveals her incompetence and ignorance.

The duty cycle is closer to 1/8 than to 1/6, Ainslie, because it is the RATIO of the ON time to the TOTAL PERIOD TIME. But you would need to understand ratios and proportions to be able to grasp that.

And this little exercise in power analysis that you've persisted in - has certainly enabled that revelation.  And that difference between 1/8 and 1/6th - yes - that was my oversight.  I was out by a small fraction.  You're out by a HUGE FACTOR.  In fact you're out by a factor of a little over 12.  I'd say that's CATASTROPHIC.

Rosie Pose