Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:34:54 PM

Please answer this.. Answer all of this without skirting around the issue....

Listen to me again.

Power = voltage x current.

Power is NOT "current."

It is the most fundamental basic concept that all energy research and analysis is based on.

Do you agree with this or not?

You can't be so ignorant that you would not agree with the above statement.  Therefore you also agree that Robert Murray-Smith made an unacceptable error.  You have no choice but to agree with me if you agree that power = voltage x current.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:35:26 PM
In the first place he doesn't claim overunity so please stop making this what it isn't....

You need to work on your English comprehension.

No my comprehension is just fine. You meant to belittle this forum by that statement.

How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. Not some high paid engineer that has no idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll. I went back and fixed it.. Now please give me the meaning of peer review.


Now how do you get peer review in this situation? AHA, Just do it! Then you have all the proof you need and this would end immediately but keep going the way you are going and all you will get is proving me right that your only goal is to troll anything anyone put down in this forum or on youtube. How self important are you...

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:45:37 PM
How about you comprehend my post about what is peer review... Funny how you didn't respond to that.... Also I am an electronic technician that fixes devices that break almost on a daily basis. I am a real world technician. not some high paid engineer that has not idea about real world applications of a circuit, for which you apparently are. This is your problem, instead of reading my post you picked out one grammatical error and stopped there. You didn't read a thing after that because you are locked into a dead end logical fallacy that is tripping you up. I made a frigging grammatical error excuse me troll... Now please give me the meaning of peer review.


Now how do you get peer review in this situation? AHA, Just do it! Then you have all the proof you need and this would end immediately but keep going the way you are going and all you will get is proving me right that you only goal is to troll anything anyone put down in this forum.

Peer review has nothing to do with this.  It's beyond the scope of what we are discussing.  But if that clip was subject to peer review it would be crucified.

You are just ragging on about your own agenda.  If you are an electronic technician then you should also see how dead wrong this clip is.  I am fully aware about the real world of electronics.  Like I said, if you agree that power = voltage x current then you agree that RMS's clip is junk.  You simply don't have any other choice.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 05:03:49 PM
Peer review has nothing to do with this.  It's beyond the scope of what we are discussing.  But if that clip was subject to peer review it would be crucified.

You are just ragging on about your own agenda.  If you are an electronic technician then you should also see how dead wrong this clip is.  I am fully aware about the real world of electronics.  Like I said, if you agree that power = voltage x current then you agree that RMS's clip is junk.  You simply don't have any other choice.

No you are peer reviewing his video and subsequent device. You are saying he made errors without doing the work to check it in your theoretical dream world where there is no .006 only 1's. It is being reviewed by anyone that sees it and you somehow took up the mantle to be his troll didn't you? You did this by A: Trying to ruin his video by your comments and B: By taking this to an outside forum and starting a thread to troll him from afar. You make claims he is doing this and that, well until you prove it, both to your self and us, then your credibility is moot on this. He doesn't have to do the experiment your way he only has to present what he thinks is going on. If he doesn't supply all of the information then maybe you need to prove he was doing it wrong, not by mathematics but by actually doing the experiment and showing where he went wrong. Oh thats right you just type you don't actually do anything for real....