What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

Let me mention also this. Increasing of points of partition (digitization) from, say, several thousand to one hundred thousand let alone a million, doesn't by any means contribute to the increase of the accuracy. On the contrary, the increase of the number of points increases the rounding errors, the floating point errors and so on. Therefore, even the most accurately measured instantaneous values of current and voltage will inevitably be prone to data processing errors and that aspect has to be studied very carefully as well.

As a matter of fact, because of all these way too many sources of errors, it is highly unusual and probably there's hardly any academic who would undertake the type of power measurements we are talking about. Nevertheless, they are important to be done, they are probably not as impossible as they now seem to be, and we have to find ways to come up with convincing experimental results.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Let me mention also this. Increasing of points of partition (digitization) from, say, several thousand to one hundred thousand let alone a million, doesn't by any means contribute to the increase of the accuracy. On the contrary, the increase of the number of points increases the rounding errors, the floating point errors and so on. Therefore, even the most accurately measured instantaneous values of current and voltage will inevitably be prone to data processing errors and that aspect has to be studied very carefully as well.

As a matter of fact, because of all these way too many sources of errors, it is highly unusual and probably there's hardly any academic who would undertake the type of power measurements we are talking about. Nevertheless, they are important to be done, they are probably not as impossible as they now seem to be, and we have to find ways to come up with convincing experimental results.

This is nonsense - with respect.  I'll answer your previous post in due course - but this is absolute nonsense.  If we can get to the moon with accurate power analysis and we can send probes to mars and to the outer reaches of our solar system - and if we can get messaging from millions of miles - with subtle - barely detectable power measurements - ALL BASED ON CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT - then WHY IS IT that our instruments become DEFUNCT and INSUFFICIENT when it gets to the analsys of a mere 35 watts from a switching cycle at a frequency PROVEN to be sufficient at the resonances we're working with.  I can still - but barely - buy into the argument that at milliwatts we're dealing with problems.  At least at this level I acknowledge that the power is hardly sufficient for purposes of generating heat.  And we've only proved heat - but now, fortunately, at more significant levels of wattages.  But DON'T give me this crap that somehow measurements become arbitrary when the manufacturers of those same instruments guarantee them.  Now you're arguing with really big names.

And I have been ASSURED by academics - WIDE RANGING AND WITH NO EXCEPTIONS - that even the Fluke we used was sufficient for measuring what we measured.  They have some margin for error.  But the instruments themselves are GUARANTEEED to give a certain level of accuracy. 

It worries me Omnibus - that you PERSIST in throwing out these nonsense arguments.  It has echoes of Harvey and Glen - and for that matter TK - written all over it.

EDITED

[Rosemary Ainslie]

SORRY THIS IS A DUPLICATE POSTING AND I CAN'T DELETE IT. 

This is nonsense - with respect.  I'll answer your previous post in due course - but this is absolute nonsense.  If we can get to the moon with accurate power analysis and we can send probes to mars and to the outer reaches of our solar system - and if we can get messaging from millions of miles - with subtle - barely detectable power measurements - ALL BASED ON CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT - then WHY IS IT that our instruments become DEFUNCT and INSUFFICIENT when it gets to the analsys of a mere 35 watts from a switching cycle at a frequency PROVEN to be sufficient at the resonances we're working with.  I can still - but barely - buy into the argument that at milliwatts we're dealing with problems.  At least at this level I acknowledge that the power is hardly sufficient for purposes of generating heat.  And we've only proved heat - but now, fortunately, at more significant levels of wattages.  But DON'T give me this crap that somehow measurements become arbitrary when the manufacturers of those same instruments guarantee them.  Now you're arguing with really big names.

And I have been ASSURED by academics - WIDE RANGING AND WITH NO EXCEPTIONS - that even the Fluke we used was sufficient for measuring what we measured.  They have some margin for error.  But the instruments themselves are GUARANTEEED to give a certain level of accuracy. 

It worries me Omnibus - that you PERSIST in throwing out these nonsense arguments.  It has echoes of Harvey and Glen - and for that matter TK - written all over it.

Sorry I've lost the original quote.  I'll try and get it back.

[Omnibus]

It's true, initially it is a common thing to hear that for these measurements even Fluke is enough. I've heard it too. However, go discuss the concrete data with these same people and you'll hear a completely different attitude. And, like I said, show me anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature measurements of power balance of, say, transformers, as thorough as we're trying to do. Not by measuring rms but the thorough ones we're doing (on signals more complex than just sine waves).

I'm telling you, had I not found the theoretical discrepancy, inherent in the electrical phenomena, I would have probably given up on the experiments for the time being. No one professionally involved in electrical measurements would want to touch them with a ten foot pole. Out of politeness, maybe. Not as a serious undertaking. This isn't some whimsical thing that I'm writing about here. I've approached some very serious parties, some of them even friends of mine, and that turned out to be a common trait in that community. We should face this fact and not hide our heads in the sand but should try to find ways to overcome it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It's true, initially it is a common thing to hear that for these measurements even Fluke is enough. I've heard it too. However, go discuss the concrete data with these same people and you'll hear a completely different attitude. And, like I said, show me anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature measurements of power balance of, say, transformers, as thorough as we're trying to do. Not by measuring rms but the thorough ones we're doing (on signals more complex than just sine waves).

I'm telling you, had I not found the theoretical discrepancy, inherent in the electrical phenomena, I would have probably given up on the experiments for the time being. No one professionally involved in electrical measurements would want to touch them with a ten foot pole. Out of politeness, maybe. Not as a serious undertaking. This isn't some whimsical thing that I'm writing here. I've approached some very serious parties, some of them even friends of mine, and that turned out to be a common trait in that community. We should face this fact and not hide our heads in the sand but should try to find ways to overcome it.

Then WHY IS IT that our own academics are using conventional instruments?  Clearly there are those who DO INDEED rely on classical measurments using classically acceptable measuring instruments.  I acknowledge that the calculation of a resonating circuit is very complex.  But when wattage is related to heat dissipated it is ABSOLUTELY UNARGUABLE. 

And I might add, when wattage delivered is based on measurements across a non-inductive calibrated shunt it is ALSO unarguable.  Go ask.  Even the most antagonistic disclaimers admit this.  ACROSS THE BOARD.