Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 04:45:37 PM
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.

You didn't make a "grammatical error."   I was simply drawing a parallel between the "classic" inversion of the burden of proof that you see on the forums all the time and your particular inversion of the burden of proof.  You didn't catch that.

There is nothing tripping me up and you can crank out another 10,000 words and nothing will have changed.  You are fully aware that power = voltage x current, and energy is power x time.  Now go look at RMS's clip and what do you see?  There is nothing more to say.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 05:10:36 PM

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....

If you are a bench technician you should see the problem right away.  Look at the voltages on the multimeter, what do you see?

It's not about "my way" - there is only one way to measure the energy output of a battery.  Do you agree with that statement or not?

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 05:10:51 PM
You didn't male a "grammatical error."   I was simply drawing a parallel between the "classic" inversion of the burden of proof that you see on the forums all the time and your particular inversion of the burden of proof.  You didn't catch that.

There is noting tripping me up and you can crank out another 10,000 words and nothing will have changed.  You are fully aware that power = voltage x current, and energy is power x time.  Now go look at RMS's clip and what do you see?  There is nothing more to say.

Yeah I know I corrected that but I couldn't go back and fix it because it timed out to edit it...


Also you are making a claim right? If so then lets stop all this sniper like activity and do it right. Build the simple device and check for yourself then make a video like he has done and post it to youtube. Otherwise anything said to the contrary is moot. You are claiming he didn't do it right. Prove it the right way! Don't just say it do a video and provide the proof of the experiment. Get a li-ion battery of the same size. Cut it apart and dissect a small section to equal the same area as the device in question. Make the device like he shows and do it the right way. I know Robert would be ok with it if you didn't use just words. His goal is to get you out of the theoretical fallacies and into the real world of experimenting. Until you do, Robert and others wont listen to you, they know your reputation of all talk and no action. Nothing.. not even a valid test from you. I mean who would listen to that?

I don't think you would ever do such a thing because there is a possibility he might be right and if he is you are wrong. But thats the problem with nay saying.

Quote from: jbignes5 on December 08, 2015, 05:21:47 PM
Also you are making a claim right? If so then lets stop all this sniper like activity and do it right. Build the simple device and check for yourself then make a video like he has done and post it to youtube. Otherwise anything said to the contrary is moot. You are claiming he didn't do it right. Prove it the right way! Don't just say it do a video and provide the proof of the experiment. Get a li-ion battery of the same size. Cut it apart and dissect a small section to equal the same area as the device in question. Make the device like he shows and do it the right way. I know Robert would be ok with it if you didn't use just words. His goal is to get you out of the theoretical fallacies and into the real world of experimenting. Until you do, Robert and others wont listen to you, they know your reputation of all talk and no action. Nothing.. not even a valid test from you. I mean who would listen to that?

The "insanity talk" is getting tedious.  RMS is not accounting for the voltage in his battery energy measurement.  The data is a fail and so I don't have to consider it any more.

All of the necessary data in in his clip right now.

Why don't you go look at the clip and do the manual energy integration yourself, use five or 10 second intervals, your choice.  Then convert that into equivalent amp-hours at 3.8 volts and let us know how much RMS is exaggerating his numbers by for our enlightenment.  I know that it's junk data and so I don't want to bother doing the manual integration to show how junky it really is.  You are so hot on it, why don't you do it?  Just don't forget to give us an error tolerance on the number also.  I would be very curious to know how bad it really is.  How much is he exaggerating?  Or perhaps somebody else reading can perform the manual integration for our enlightenment.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 08, 2015, 05:33:00 PM
The "insanity talk" is getting tedious.  RMS is not accounting for the voltage in his battery energy measurement.  The data is a fail and so I don't have to consider it any more.

All of the necessary data in in his clip right now.

Why don't you go look at the clip and do the manual energy integration yourself, use five or 10 second intervals, your choice.  Then convert that into equivalent amp-hours at 3.8 volts and let us know how much RMS is exaggerating his numbers by for our enlightenment.  I know that it's junk data and so I don't want to bother doing the manual integration to show how junky it really is.  You are so hot on it, why don't you do it?  Just don't forget to give us an error tolerance on the number also.  I would be very curious to know how bad it really is.  How much is he exaggerating?  Or perhaps somebody else reading can perform the manual integration for our enlightenment.

So now you want others to prove it for you.. Man just delete this thread and get lost. I mean really you claim he is doing something yet you want others to do it for you to find out.. Just delete the thread and get over it already. The tedious part is your responses with the failed calculations. Yet you don't know a damn thing about those values. Then you ask for others to do it for you. Wow.