Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 01:39:49 AM
My dear ReFried, (snip)I simply CANNOT. (snip)
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

There, Polly Parrot Ainslie, I have edited out the irrelevant and untrue material from your post, so that others don't waste their time on you.

Did you edit out this part?  TK?  Didn't you earlier state that you NEVER misrepresent my work?  Are you again CONTRADICTING yourself?  And WHY would you decline to acknowledge this extraordinary level of tribute I've paid you?  I am FLABBERGASTED.

Rosie Pose

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 01:39:49 AM
My dear ReFried,  It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded.  Certainly not on this forum.  Or in fact on any forum.  Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it.      I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak.  But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can.  Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's.  His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING.  I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal.  He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'.  I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent.  He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model.  I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements.   TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME.  I cannot.  He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them.  He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another.  I simply CANNOT.  My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.

So.  Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact.  Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

Rosemary,

Do you have any comments or thoughts to my bias current test on page 127 post 1899?

GL.

No, Polly Spammer Parrot.
I just quote you, mostly. But sometimes you do chatter on, don't you.

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

QuoteLet's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms.  The source voltage is 220 volts.  The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you.  While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.

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.

Quote
Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 12:03:05 AM

   

QuotePW says:  "...will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance. "

Right side drain?  Source resistance?  What are you talking about?  If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it.  If you are referring to the drain or source rail of the battery then say it.  This entire phrase is entirely undefined.  It is the simple 'rule' of science that terms must be defined and clearly expressed.  Anything less and we're NOT talking science. 

QuoteThere is no way the scope can be used improperly.  A setting is a setting.

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.

QuoteJust had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934

See what happens when I quote you in full? I should think that you would be happy that I don't, since the more I do, the stupider you look.

I am really interested to know what Ainslie thinks about this video, that she keeps trying to bury.

Especially since it directly refutes another of her inanities.

QuoteWhat you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc

But please answer Groundloop's question first, if you would be so "kind".