Agreed PW.

We will have to see how Rose makes the distinction between "over" and "during".

I can't figure out how she arrived at the 5.9 MJ figure in the first place. Usually she simply takes all the numbers available and multiplies them together until she gets a figure she likes. But since she so rarely shows her work it's hard to see just what happened here.

She has "calculated" this trial's numbers for us before, showing her work, though:

QuoteSo.  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.

Er...... Come, let us do the math.

"4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules"  This much at least is approximately correct.

Now let's start randomly multiplying stuff and making simple math errors without checking.

" 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules"  Joules PER SECOND? Where did that come from? There is no "PER SECOND" resulting from the first multiplication, it is just JOULES. Time does NOT ENTER INTO that calculation.

248 292 x 90 = 22 346 280 indeed. But how do you multiply Joules "PER SECOND" times a number of MINUTES and arrive at a figure in JOULES? You don't.

"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 "
Sneaky Ainslie here is telling you that the water is raised an additional 88 degrees C.... when it should have been 104 - 82 = 22 degrees C. The water was at 82 degrees C when the 10 minute period began, so it was raised only a further 22 degrees to 104 C (sic). Of course water cannot exist at 104 degrees C in an unpressurized container at sea level, so this temperature figure is ALSO OBVIOUSLY WRONG, but let it stand for the moment.

"4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules."  The first part of course counts the cost of the first temperature rise AGAIN and the second part AGAIN multiplies a "J/sec" figure by a "Minutes" figure (not a Seconds figure)  and pretends to arrive at a "J" answer. Once again, multiplying everything in sight yields an answer whose NUMBERS check... that is, 4.18x900x88=331156 all right.. (but multiplying that by 10 does not equal 3 310 560) but this number represents nonsense, not Joules.

"Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules." That's right: add the same quantity of energy twice, incorporate several simple math errors, and confound units until the answer is meaningless, then cite it as major evidence for your claim.

Then Ainslie reports THE SAME TRIAL USING DIFFERENT NUMBERS, some of them, IN HER "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION."

But I cannot figure out how the 5.9  MegaJoule figure could have been arrived at using the numbers she has given anywhere, even incorporating her usual units confounds and some plausible math errors.

I know it is useless to ask Ainslie for the derivation of that 5.9 MegaJoule figure (removed without comment from the latest "edit" but not from the official publication) but can anyone else please explain to me where that number came from? I mean, it's there in the paper, I know that, but how was it calculated, exactly?

Quote from: poynt99 on July 11, 2012, 12:32:57 PM
Agreed PW.

We will have to see how Rose makes the distinction between "over" and "during".

You are kidding around again.

We are talking about the Red Queen Ainslie, who makes words mean whatever she likes, regardless of what dictionaries say about it.

According to her, "per" NEVER MEANS DIVISION, so the terms "over" a period or "for" a period certainly will have different meanings as well.

And, as usual, her own "reference" refutes her soundly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_%28mathematics%29  Per .... always denotes a RATIO, and when TIME is in the DENOMINATOR, a RATE, like "miles PER hour" which is written mathematically as Miles / hour ..... that is right, Ainslie, a DIVISION operation is what is NORMALLY indicated by the word PER, according to YOUR OWN REFERENCE, the Wikipedia article on rates.

@PW: RE Fig 5:

This is SCRN0150, which I have analyzed based on a 4-battery stack, taking her at her word that the magenta trace is the battery figure, as described when she posted the image in her blog, rather than in the paper.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/50.html

QuoteChannel 1 shunt voltage
Channel 2 Battery voltage
Channel 3 Gate voltage
MATH TRACE PRODUCT OF CHANNEL 1 AND 2

No, I don't think that the drain is being monitored here. I believe that only 4 batteries were used in series for this trial, in spite of what the figure's description in the paper says. Note also in the description that Ainslie says the period was 684 ms when in fact it appears to be more like 684 MICROseconds, not milliseconds.

This is another one with sufficient Q1 on time to have overheated Q1 IF a true 72 volt battery had been used.

The image below was taken just now from the "current" "corrected" edition posted on her new forum.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2012, 02:27:41 PM
@PW: RE Fig 5:

This is SCRN0150, which I have analyzed based on a 4-battery stack, taking her at her word that the magenta trace is the battery figure, as described when she posted the image in her blog, rather than in the paper.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/50.html
No, I don't think that the drain is being monitored here. I believe that only 4 batteries were used in series for this trial, in spite of what the figure's description in the paper says. Note also in the description that Ainslie says the period was 684 ms when in fact it appears to be more like 684 MICROseconds, not milliseconds.

This is another one with sufficient Q1 on time to have overheated Q1 IF a true 72 volt battery had been used.

The image below was taken just now from the "current" "corrected" edition posted on her new forum.

TK,

Why would you base your analysis on only 4 batteries?

She specifically states in her paper rearding Test 2 that SIX batteries were used.

Is there some evidence or statement that only 4 batteries were used or was this just assumed due to the indicated voltage during Q1 on time?


PW