David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[tinman]

Brad:

with the trotting out of the dictionary definition for "reactive."  You didn't have to respond to me at all. 

MileHigh

All that you had to do was redo that ridiculous farce of a current measurement and get it right and present good data to your peers.

And there is proof enough,as it was in no way a current measurement-->another false statement from you.It was only to show the current spikes that were said to be needed in order for the effect to take place. Had you taken the time to read up a bit on this setup,and the requirements put forth in order for it to work as stated,then you would not be hopping around like a blind frog,looking for something to do.

You are an amateur comic

And you are a nothing.
You do nothing but hop from thread to thread,causing grief where ever you go.
I can out do you on a bench any day,as you dont do bench.
I can build a more efficient JT than you
I can build a more efficient pulse motor than you.
And i can build a more efficient rotoverter than you.
These are all facts,and there is no way you can prove otherwise.

What you need to do MH,is leave me alone--plain and simple.
There is no need for you to come to another thread i am on,and turn it to trash like the many threads you have done so on.

But my offer still stands MH-->do you wish to take me up on one of my challenges,and show everyone here that you can beat me at your own claimed brilliance?--show everyone here that you do know as much as you claim to know?.
LOL-no,i did not think so,because when it comes time to back up your claims,you run like the scared little chicken you are.

So do not engage with me until you are going to put your skills where your mouth is.


Brad

[citfta]

MileHigh,

I wasn't going to respond to your posts but you are babbling off a bunch of nonsense that needs to be corrected for the sake of those trying to learn.

You have posted that an inverter is non-reactive.  That is complete foolishness.  Anyone that has built or worked with inverters knows they are definitely reactive.  But then you claim the circuit with the inverter is reactive.  HUH?  That doesn't make any sense.

You also posted the sample rate of the DSO is not giving us the complete picture because the sample rate is faster than the signal.  Do you even understand how a DSO works?  Under sampling is just the opposite of what you claimed.  The sample rate frequency HAS to be several times the signal frequency or you couldn't possibly get an accurate picture of the signal shape and amplitude.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea there might be more to this world than what you learned from books?  I have worked in electronics since I was 14 years old.  I have an associate degree in industrial electronics and an Advanced Radio Operators license (HAM).  I worked in industry as an electronic tech for over 30 years.  I will certainly agree the conventional training I have had made it much easier to do my job.  But I also know the conventional theory does not explain all I have seen both on my bench and on the job.

Brad may not use all the technical terms in exactly the way you want him to but at least he is making a serious effort to do something.  All I have seen from you is your use of technical arguments to try and discredit Brad.  And most of those arguments are clearly just to distract and not further the research.  Please, just go back to your books and leave the research to those that are actually trying to learn something.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[3Kelvin]

Hello together,
sorry for my bad English.
schwore, try to become better.

Plz, do not build up another Zombie Thread between good and evil.

I did not realy believe in big guns, i like work bench results.
Not trolling about the work that others make(done).

So what?
Try to put the different forces together and have fun.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j

As a pupil, i need a teacher who is be able to make my day.
Not the one, who beat me with the homework and later with the exam.
Enjoy the vids

Love and Peace
3K

[tinman]

A bold claim that will never be proven by you without visible evidence of bench activity to back it up.

Not only that,but also the below

Sure, that's the ticket.  I have done tons of analysis over the years and anybody that knows their stuff could easily qualify me.  In fact, my skills are already known and you are just bluffing.  Your real issue is Brad's failed attempt to measure the current input of the inverter.  Forget about some meaningless deflection by challenging me.  If you want to do something sensible, encourage Brad to redo his measurement and get it right because right now nobody knows how the input of the inverter works.

You see here that Miles makes the mistake in thinking the current measurements were being taken from the DSO,when in fact ,if he had of watched the videos,he would have clearly seen that the provided current measurements were being taken from the DMM,and the DSO was simply showing the current trace across that DMMs CVR.

Dont pay to much attention to him hoptoad,as he often makes mistakes like this.


Brad

[hoptoad]

snip...
In fact, my skills are already known and you are just bluffing.
snip...

I've got no skin in the race so I've got nothing to 'bluff' about. I've made no claims. You are the one making bench skill claims. You have proven you are skilled with words, especially ad hominem, and have a good and thorough understanding of electronics. But bench activity requires actions. You made a claim about your bench skills - prove it with actions. If you WILL not prove it with actions then your bench skills claim is and will continue to be baseless rhetoric.

Try taking a leaf out of Tinsel's style, backing up your knowledge and claims of bench skill with presentable activity. Or else refrain from making claims that you refuse to back up.