Quote from: picowatt on May 08, 2012, 01:05:01 PM
Frankly, you are terrible at making technical descriptions.  A "positive at Q1 or Q2" is a meaningless statement.  If you mean a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and a positive voltage at the gate of Q2, you are wrong regarding the latter.  In your first paper schematic, Q2 is turned on when the source terminal of Q2 is made more negative than ground (to be precise, more negative than the non-battery end of the CSR).

The FG does not and can not apply a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 as you claim.

Learn,

PW

My dear picowatt
Not only DOES the function generator apply a positive at the Gate of Q2 but we will PROVE THIS.  But to prove it we will vary that circuit and apply the SOURCE LEG of Q2 directly to the SOURCE of the battery supply.  IF the function generator were NOT able to apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2 while it applies a negative signal to the gate of Q1  - then we will NOT get a continual DC, greater than zero, continual voltage evident across that CSR.  Then your argument will be PROVED.  We KNOW what happens when we do this.  And that oscillation is most assuredly the VICTIM - together with this your argument.

Rosie Pose

Edited out some repetitions.

Ains-lie said, in response to STEFAN telling her to prove her assertions or shut up:

QuoteThis is simply not the case.  It is not only my collaborators who require good measurement - but science itself.  Anything less than accurate data would be a waste of everyone's time.  And I would thank you to not borrow TK's and Picowatt's assumption that I need any education in the art of measurement.  It was I who had to point out to TK that his best efforts were inadequate.  He didn't even factor in impedance. 

That is another baldfaced lie. I have posted my spreadsheet several times, and I calculated using only the DC resistance, as WELL AS using inductive reactance values from HER DATA, my ProsKit meter, as well as inductances found by direct measurement of resonant tank circuits. ALL of these different values were used in the spreadsheet, and ALL result in the negative mean power calculations. And there is no need to do anything that AINSLIE herself has not done--- the TEK scopeshots that I produced make EXACTLY THE SAME "factoring of impedance" that AINSLIE did for her scope shots: none.

QuoteAnd he took his sample measurements across a series of oscillations that were FAR from representative. 

This is another AINS-LIE. The Tek sampled the oscillations just as adequately as Ainslie has ever done... more so, since I actually know what that means.

QuoteAnd he STILL is not applying impedance.  He hasn't even given us the inductance values of his potentiometer that he CLAIMS to have used in the video - nor those wire wound resistors that he CLAIMS to use in that calorimeter of his.

The potentiometer: that is right, I have not given its "impedance". Should I? Has Ainslie given the impedance of the IsoTech GFG 324 function generator? Why not? And I most certainly have given the reactive impedance of my load. Has Ainslie done so for hers? All I find is the inductance measurement, with no formula for reactive impedance, no computation of what the load's inductive reactance is at 1.5 MHz.... nothing.

QuoteAnd your statement that I need an 'education' falls into the same bracket as the 'tarring' which seems to be your preferred editorial bias.  I can PROVE my competence at integrated power analysis. 

PROVE IT THEN. CORRECT YOUR MATH in the several posts you've made containing math, like the two I keep quoting, that you NEVER HAVE CORRECTED. You are ignorant of algebra and calculus, therefore you cannot possibly be competent at integrated power analysis. YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORD 'INTEGRATION' MEANS until I told you. You thought, in your racist mind, that it referred to race relations when I first told you, three years ago, that you were trying to do a numerical integration. Perhaps you THINK you know the mathematical meaning of integration now, but it's clear from other posts you make... like your reference to "VI dt" that you still have no clue about the basic concepts of the calculus, including integration and differentiation.

QuoteTherefore anyone refuting this is guilty of slander.

You do realise that it is slander and libel to accuse someone of slander if they are telling the truth about you and can prove it, I hope.

QuoteAnd for either FTC or TK or picowatt to claim that I need education on basic power measurements is a joke.  FTC for one - couldn't do this at all - for the entire duration of those 'replicated' tests he did.

You are the joke, Ainslie, but nobody is laughing any more..... you deserve the pity that any sick person deserves. You are mentally crippled. If you think you understand power measurements, then CORRECT YOUR BLUNDERS BELOW, on your next post, to show that you are really competent as you claim. Don't forget the CONCLUSION..... that needs correcting as well.

QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

QuoteBubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

These, from someone who claims to understand "integrated power measurements"... but who cannot even tell the difference between a Watt and a Joule, and who calculates by pushing buttons randomly on a calculator and accepting whatever it spits out.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 01:18:54 PM

My dear picowatt
Not only DOES the function generator apply a positive at the Gate of Q2 but we will PROVE THIS.  But to prove it we will vary that circuit and apply the SOURCE LEG of Q2 directly to the SOURCE of the battery supply.  IF the function generator were NOT able to apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2 while it applies a negative signal to the gate of Q1  - then we will NOT get a continual DC, greater than zero, continual voltage evident across that CSR.  Then your argument will be PROVED.  We KNOW what happens when we do this.  And that oscillation is most assuredly the VICTIM - together with this your argument.

Rosie Pose

Edited out some repetitions.

You have already disproved that the FG causes the gate of Q2 to go positive.  The voltage at the gate of Q2 is always the same voltage as the non-battery end of the CSR to which the gate of Q2 is connected.  Therefore, your 'scope shots of the CSR voltage tell us precisely what the gate voltage of Q2 is. 

Have fun proving otherwise.

(you do know what "connected" means don't you?)

PW

More Ains-lies:

QuoteThat's a big IF. There are six of us who stand by these measurements.  And 4 of those 6 collaborators are qualified engineers.  There are a host of engineers OUTSIDE of our collaboration who have witnessed these results and stand by them.

"Stand by them" usually means that they are willing to "stand by them"  yet nobody anywhere lately has "stood by you". Your engineers and collaborators are imaginary until proven otherwise.

QuoteThere are at least 2 academic institutions devoted to replicating and getting to grips with the evidence in these experiments.

PROVE IT. I call you on this one altogether, Ainslie. Show any proof at all that there is an "academic institution" other than a nursery school which is "devoted to replicating" anything you have actually done.

QuoteAnd yet you are somehow convinced by TK's evidence?  I would have thought that you'd see through his slander and the need for this before you'd be convinced by anything at all. 

My demonstrations are repeatable by anyone with simple equipment. All data is given. Ainslie's--- not so much.

QuoteHad he been courteous, fair minded, reasonable, then indeed one could perhaps have been persuaded by an apparent impartiality.

YOU STARTED with the disrespect and all the rest of it, the insults and the veiled threats whenever anyone disagrees with you... bitch. I first got into this with a simple request that you correct your egregious math error. YOU responded with insult after insult and have NEVER YET TO THIS DAY corrected your mistakes and the conclusions based on them.

QuoteBut his tests are inadequate, contradictory, ambiguous, confusing, rendered with dreadful photography under excessively poor lighting - and with NO effort made to validate any single filmed reference made.

All my tests are repeatably by anyone and I give all necessary data to do so. You are the only one who doesn't understand what I'm doing and that is because, primarily, you are willfully ignorant of the topic, your own topic. Secondarily, it is because your "cup is full" and you think you know it all already. Two words: Dunning-Kruger.

QuoteThe most of those videos are associated with 'disgusting' innuendos ... 'making out with a dog'? 'boomp'  'boomp'?  Or heavy handed sarcasm?

How many videos have I posted on the topic? "MOST" would then mean over half, right? Yet you only cite two references and they again are to things which you don't understand.

QuoteThe 'the battery voltage has not dropped... but we all know it has'... number?  And 'you know who' will object? 

Something wrong or incorrect there? As you can see, I was right in all respects on that one.

QuoteOr that ABSURD 'calibration' exercise given as some kind of evidence that his data is valid? 

How is it invalid to use Ohm's Law and a known resistance to determine current? Only to someone who does not understand Ohm's Law and the process of calibration.

QuoteAnd you think this is SCIENCE? Then the use of that ridiculously heavily cladded insulated calorimeter of his - which SOMETIMES shows a change in temperature - but NEVER is this related to time - which can be the only valid reference in the face of all that cladding.   

Lies again. What is more ridiculous: to measure the heat rise over time with a resistor in an insulated oil bath of known characteristics, or to measure the mere temperature of a naked water heater element hanging in the air? And how many times have I posted time vs. temperature data? Quite a few, actually. Ainslie lies due to her ignorance and idee fixe again.

QuoteAnd the resistor inside is variously a potentiometer or simply wire wound resistors - and we STILL don't know their inductance. 

I have NEVER used a potentiometer in there, never claimed or implied I have, therefore ANSLIE lies yet again. I have specified the exact type and manufacturer of the CERAMIC WIREWOUND RESISTORS (which incidentally are just like the ones she specified as NECESSARY for her COP>17 claimed circuit) and I have indeed stated the inductance, measured using my ProsKit Meter but ALSO using the resonant tank method which is more accurate, and this latter measurement IS GIVEN ON MY SCHEMATIC which has been posted, with revisions clearly noted, several times. And I'll even post it again below.

QuoteWe only know that it is NOT the same as our own resistor.   

You know more about my resistor than anyone but the manufacturer knows about yours. Now are you claiming that only a custom water heater element from your friends at Specific Heat is necessary to convert the ordinary negative mean power measurements into magic special battery non-discharging performance? You are ridiculous in your flailing about.

QuoteNor are we given one single stat against the actual battery performance related to that wattage dissipated.

That's because I have not yet published that data for this present claim, although I certainly did for your COP>17 claim. When I do it will be clear that your circuit heats the mosfets and isn't as efficient, not nearly, as straight DC current would be at the load.

QuoteAnd you are CONVINCED by this charade?   I would have hoped that you'd see through it.  Surely?

Insulting our host many times again.
Perhaps my demonstrations are seen as being more convincing than yours because I ACTUALLY SHOW SOMETHING, I twiddle knobs and show circuit responses and I compare things and I give ALL DATA NECESSARY for repetition, including correct schematics AND CORRECT USE OF TERMINOLOGY, and I correct my errors as soon as they are found and pointed out. All of that gives my demonstrations a credibility factor that you, AINSLIE, are completely lacking.

Go on, keep insulting our host and lying, trying to get yourself off the hook by getting yourself banned. I hope Stefan is more tolerant than the Naked Scientists and Energetic Forum.... and keeps the pressure on you, to PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
But I know you cannot. You have had YEARS to do so, you've had the equipment, all of it. What happened to the Fluke 123 and/or 199 ScopeMeters you claimed to own? Those are perfectly capable of dumping their data to spreadsheets and will give you the same result you will get with your freshly calibrated and expensive LeCroy (ask them how they calibrated it). Where are these Fluke oscilloscopes that you claimed to own? Or is referring to a scope as "mine" not count as ownership in Ainslie-ese?

Note the inductances given and the revision date, all clearly marked. These inductances are measured, using the resonant tank circuit method, not the ProsKit meter. Of course Ainslie only believes in numbers in boxes.... but her lies are nevertheless clearly exposed, for I am indeed clear about schematics in use as well as inductance values and how they are obtained. Not only that... but I understand inductive and capacitive reactance, and even still possess my sophomore EE textbook from the course (which required a year of CALCULUS even to get into) where I sat and passed exams on the subject.
Ainslie? Not so much.

(And I'm including some raw time-temperature data just to rattle Ainslie's cage. I'm pretty sure I posted these when they happened, too. These are preliminary, of course, just to show that the load is heating and over a long time period, not just an instant measurement. Now that I have an acknowledgement that Tar Baby is indeed working just like NERD, I'll be doing more serious calorimetry, of that you can be sure. Ainslie... not so much.)

And... by the way.... I have done "cool-down" measurements on that calorimeter, so I know its rough heat leak rate. I also know the heated thermal mass inside: there is 250 mL of mineral oil in there, specific gravity 0.83 grams per mL and specific heat 1.67 Joules per degree C per gram, and I am measuring the OIL not the RESISTORS. Thus..... for a given TEMPERATURE of the oil, and the TIME IT TOOK to get to that temperature, I can CALCULATE... yes, I can actually calculate .... the actual power dissipation at the load, with a fair degree of precision. And I can calculate the total energy that has been delivered to the load. Because I know a Joule from a Watt, and a Watt from a hole in the head.

What is the calorimetric technique of Ainslie and the NERDs?  They suspend a water heater element in air, with a thermocouple over it, then when it gets hot they plunge it into some water in a teapot. Then they calculate thusly:

QuoteAccording to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Yes.... Do the Math, please. I think it is safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.