Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
My dear Leon.  I will keep it up.  I know I'm doing just 'fine'.  You've made a GLARING ERROR in power analysis and then you've rather absurdly persisted in claiming that it's correct.  You are UTTERLY WRONG.  Couldn't be more so.  As I said - CATASTROPHICALLY so.  You've shown a complete inability to understand the concept of wattage which you're trying to promote can be equated any single sample of instantaneous wattage.  Wattage is ALWAYS related to POWER and POWER always factors in time.  Here's that equation again.

Rosie Pose

Ainslie, YOU are continuing to make the same error. The WATT is a RATE. POWER IS A RATE OF DISSIPATION OF ENERGY. The JOULE is the quantity of energy that is being dissipated. The WATT is a JOULE PER SECOND. The average power is the TOTAL JOULES DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL SECONDS.  And that is what that equation is trying to tell you.

YOU make a basic math error concerning the duty cycle and you make a MAJOR conceptual error, pointed out to you many times by many people, that invalidates your criticisms of my work.

GO AHEAD, take this information to a THIRD PARTY and see what they say. Take it to your "academics". TEST YOURSELF.

But we know you won't. YOU CANNOT.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
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

So being out by a factor of 12 is a catastrophic error. By what factor were you out in your battery calculations Rosemary ? It was something like a factor of 70 was it not ?

Hilarious!

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 02:53:29 PM
and Guys this argument is no longer even dealing with science.
The duty cycle is most assuredly 12.5% ON - 87.5% OFF.  I am NOT claiming that that 320 mA is TINY or negligible.  I'm claiming that it is a rate of current flow applicable to 12.5% of each duty cycle.  Which means that the 20 watts that TK measured is NOT correct.  it is 20 watts x 12.5% which is 2.5 watts.  DO THE MATH... LEON

Regards,
Rosemary

What does it say in the first paragraph of this blog post? Are you now publicly retracting that claim? Fine.

Hi Poynty - I've only just seen this post.

Quote from: poynt99 on May 09, 2012, 02:39:46 PM
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.

I KNOW what TK's referring to.  He's trying to say that the instantaneous wattage during the 'on' period is 20 watts.  He then goes on to conclude that 20 watts would be sufficient to result in the energies evident in our water to boil test.  I am saying - CATEGORICALLY that 20 watts is QUITE SIMPLY AN ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION of WATTAGE.  If it is 20 watts for 12.5% of each duty cycle - then it's also resulting in a COOLING down of that same resistor during 87.5% of that same duty cycle.  Therefore it does not ever enjoy the uninterrupted delivery of 20 watts but only 2.5 watts.  SO.  His wattage calculation is inadequate.  And his conclusions are SPURIOUS.  Quite apart from which - NOTA BENE - 20 watts does NOT take our element resistor to the giddy heights of upwards of 200 degrees centigrade.  So even 20 watts would not explain our water to boil test.  He is attempting to trivialise our results.  And he is doing it with the typical barrage of expletive and invective - because he has NO sense of professionalism.

What a sorry little man he is.
Rosie

Quote from: evolvingape on May 09, 2012, 02:55:33 PM
So being out by a factor of 12 is a catastrophic error. By what factor were you out in your battery calculations Rosemary ? It was something like a factor of 70 was it not ?

Hilarious!

Wait a minute... it still has not been demonstrated that I am "out by a factor of 12". I think she's hallucinating again.
Show me, please, where I am out by a factor of 12, SO THAT I MIGHT CORRECT MY ERROR, if it is one.