Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
picowatt.  IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated.  That means that there iare NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time.  EVER.  And no amount of hand waving is going to change that.  Watts is watts.  No way around that definition.  Sorry.

Rosie Pose

Keep digging, Ainslie, you are getting down to the bedrock. You are way over your head here and you are even beginning to see yourself that you are totally wrong. It's useless for me to suggest that you CHECK YOUR DEFINITIONS. But go on... what you have just posted reveals that what I have said all along is true: you do not understand integration over time, and you do not understand how an average power is computed from a pulsating signal with a duty cycle.

THE FULL 20 WATTS that is undeniably flowing during the ON time is multiplied by the percentage of the Total Time that the ON time extends, to arrive at the total AVERAGE over that time. So if you have, say, 20 Watts for 1/2 the total time, then your average power is 10 Watts over that time period.

(THIS is "SHOWING". Note that there are some numbers, some operations, and some results given. NOT JUST WORDS.)

To arrive at your 3.33 Watt figure you have to calculate from the 20 Watts that we have calculated, along with the duty cycle percentage. So, since your duty cycle in the scopeshot is about 1/8 or 12.5 percent ON.... we arrive at something like your 3.33 Watt figure BY USING THE 20 WATTS that we have calculated, MULTIPLIED BY THE DUTY CYCLE PERCENTAGE. Like this:

20 Watts instantaneous power X 0.125 cycle ON  == 2.5 Watts AVERAGE POWER.

Your citation of the 3.33 Watts figure PROVES THAT WE ARE RIGHT, not wrong, you dimwit.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:50:33 AM
OK guys,

This is the entire PROOF required that we are no longer talking science.  And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model - nor established measurement protocols - nor anything at all that is even half way relevant to power analysis.  And this post can be dismissed in its entirety.  And for those of you who KNOW power analysis - then this is really as far as any of you need go to see that TK is on a MISSION.  And that mission has NOTHING to do with science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

You are just wrong. I am advancing nothing more than correct calculations.  And that's really as far as anyone needs to go to see that Ainslie is a lying idiot.

Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 10:35:45 AM
Seems to me, that if you were actually interested in discussing your technology, this post would have had some math results in it.  Why don't you just show TK et al that they are wrong and show your math?   

I see you feel the need to remind us of your intelligence once again.

It's getting old,

I am very interested in discussing our technology.  The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper.  There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model.  And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence.  It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity.  Me.  I'm Mrs Average.  And good science NEVER needs more than that.   I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us.  We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak. 

Rosie Pose

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 10:59:39 AM
You are just wrong. I am advancing nothing more than correct calculations.  And that's really as far as anyone needs to go to see that Ainslie is a lying idiot.

LOL.  For 'correct' read 'incorrect'.  For calculations read 'adventure'.  And as for me being a lying idiot - I forgive you.  I see why you need to claim this.  You're out of your depth.  And you've run out of invective.

As ever.
Rosie Pose

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
picowatt.  IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated.  That means that there are NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time.  EVER.  And no amount of hand waving is going to change that.  Watts is watts.  No way around that definition.  Sorry.

Rosie Pose

Watts are caculated over time. That's IT.  Always it's represented as an average over time.  NO OTHER WAY TO CUT IT.

YOU IDIOT. A Watt is an INSTANTANEOUS MEASUREMENT. It is a RATE of energy dissipation. A WATT IS A JOULE PER SECOND.

AVERAGE POWER is the instantaneous power averaged over time. THAT is it. Instantaneous power is what you get when you multiply all those points by all those other points. YOU DON'T GET AVERAGE POWER until you factor in the time.
AGAIN, this is at the heart of your fundamental confusion about the meaning of the Watt and the Joule.

Is a MILE the same thing as a MILE PER HOUR? No, of course it isn't. One is a QUANTITY and the other is a RATE. You are confusing your quantities with your rates and as long as you do you will continue to make these hopeless blunders.