QuoteI can PROVE that TK cannot do power analysis to an acceptable level.  I can prove that I can do power analysis to an acceptable level.  Therefore MileHigh's comments related to this are STILL slanderous.

Go ahead and prove it then. Cite a calculation that I have not done to "an accepable level".

RIGHT NOW, you liar, or any time at all.

Like this:

Quote
NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According 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.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT CORRECTED THAT LITTLE JEWEL OF POWER "CALCULATION".  Nor have you retracted the bogus conclusion based on it.

Again, therefore, you lie.

The essential difference between you and me, my dear little TK is that I ACKNOWLEDGED a mere error in computation.  YOU on the other hand are not even aware of your GROSS and PROFOUND error related to standard measurement protocols.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 11:26:16 PM
Go ahead and prove it then. Cite a calculation that I have not done to "an accepable level".

RIGHT NOW, you liar, or any time at all.

Like this:

YOU STILL HAVE NOT CORRECTED THAT LITTLE JEWEL OF POWER "CALCULATION".  Nor have you retracted the bogus conclusion based on it.

Again, therefore, you lie.

And I do NOT have to prove your incompetence.  I prefer to let this stand - on this thread - for the anyone at all to see this for themselves.  Your real and marked miscalculation is in the perspicacity and knowledge and breadth of knowledge of some of our readers.  I RELY on this.

Rosie Pose.

Do you know what the GRE is? No, of course you don't, Ainslie. But here are my scores: Verbal, 800. Quantitative Reasoning, 780.
So I don't really care about what YOU think of my math skills, because I KNOW what mine are and they are far FAR superior to yours, Miss 25.6 Million Joules.

You and me, paper and pencil, no calculators allowed. Any where, any time, any problem.  Miss "vi dt" who never came close to a calculus classroom in her life. I have total and utter contempt for you Polly Parrot.

Slander is spoken, libel is written and so, if there was any merit in your protestations, you should be accusing people of libel not slander.


But there isn't, so you shouldn't.


Certainly there are approximations in some of the calculations, but that's a side-effect of the bizarre variant of Open Source you've seem to have adhered to.


But in the main, the approach to these calculations is sound.


In technical discussions at all levels, honest men and women have divergent opinions and rarely feel the need to threaten legal redress because of a contrary view or interpretation. They come armed with their data and their reasoning. In this particular case, you may as well claim you are libelled by gravity because you don't float.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 11:32:10 PM
The essential difference between you and me, my dear little TK is that I ACKNOWLEDGED a mere error in computation.  YOU on the other hand are not even aware of your GROSS and PROFOUND error related to standard measurement protocols.

And I do NOT have to prove your incompetence.  I prefer to let this stand - on this thread - for the anyone at all to see this for themselves.  Your real and marked miscalculation is in the perspicacity and knowledge and breadth of knowledge of some of our readers.  I RELY on this.

Rosie Pose.

WRONG, crazy ignorant lying woman. You made more than a mere error in computation in that "calculation". Why don't you re-do it for us right now and show off your consummate math skills, you ignorant liar. YOU CANNOT because you don't even understand where your errors are.

You CANNOT "prove" my incompetence because I am not incompetent. YOU however, have been proven incompetent many times by many different people over the years, and this will continue for as long as you remain willfully ignorant and arrogant.