another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear three readers of this thread,

I sincerely hope Rosemary's analysis of my last post is not taken seriously. It's a shame when even Ohm's law can be so carelessly butchered.

Evidently, Rosemary has an innate ability to severely FUBAR even the most incredibly simple and clear circuit. 

.99

Dear Poynty Point,

I've already explained this.  Harti's system here allows for the actual rate of hits on this and any thread.  Check it out sometime.  Your math is appalling. 

THEN.  May I again ask you to 'stick to the point'.  IF you find that there's something I have written that is WRONG - you really need to point out WHERE.  Else we - all of us who read here - will simply assume that you're trying to 'duck the issue'.  Possibly you remember that 'fooling the people all the time' thing?  It still applies.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

[poynt99]

I wonder if we can  refer  - NOT so much to your own analysis - but to our paper.

How the hell do you expect anyone to have a productive discussion with you about your paper, circuit and test results, when quite obviously (based on your analysis of my simple circuit) you don't even have a solid grasp of Ohm's law?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Poynty Point,

How the hell do you expect anyone to have a productive discussion with you about your paper, circuit and test results, when quite obviously (based on your analysis of my simple circuit) you don't even have a solid grasp of Ohm's law?

.99

You ALLEGE that I do not have a solid grasp of Ohm's Law.  I PROVE that you do not have a solid grasp of power computation.  I challenge you to PROVE your point.  We're all rather tired of your allegations.

Again,
Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

I've split this into two posts because the following is seriously long.  But here are the niceties of the argument - for those who are interested.

Poynty is proposing to use terms such as POUT AND PIN.  "P" as used  to represent power in the context of the energy moving OUT AND IN to a circuit.  Now.  Let's go over the various properties that are required for the measure of power.

In analysing the amount of energy delivered by a supply source, one first needs to establish the amount of potential difference available at that source.  This is to get some measure of the 'force', so to speak, of the energy available to be transferred.  This potential difference is measured as voltage.  Then one needs to establish the 'rate' at which this potential difference is transferred.  That's a measure of the current flow.  And, as mentioned in my previous post,  the rate of current flow - in turn - is determined by the Ohms value of resistance in the path of that potential difference.  There are factors that vary this - related to the inductance on the circuit and to speed of applied switching frequencies.  But we're here dealing with his schematic represented in his earlier post.  No switches.  Not complexities.  Therefore V (source voltage) over the Ohms value of the resistor determines I (that rate of current flow).  Technically therefore - this product also  represents the measure of energy flowing through the circuit every second.  And this is represented as Wattage.  The calculation of power - out or in - is then the product of that instantaneous wattage over time which is the power delivered by that system.  And because time is now factored in then and that number is represented as JOULES. 

Time out of mind - in this extraordinary analysis applied to his simulation programs - and in EVERY SINGLE COMPUTATION that he has ever attempted in his analysis of this and any circuitry - he then detours into a major departure from the conventional measurement practices.  He proposes the terms POUT (POWER OUT) AND PIN (POWER IN) and proceeds to represent that number as WATTAGE.  Which is a horribly flawed and a rather abused misuse of the term power.  POWER IS NOT WATTAGE.  So WHY does he use the term POUT or PIN or anything like this - AT ALL -  when WOUT - OR WIN - if anything - would be more appropriate?  And even that is debatable.  But I'll get there.  For now, just know that these terms have little - if any relevance to their use as determined by ALL standard or conventional terminologies.  His use of them - his invention of these terms POUT AND PIN are only a reflection of his own rather eccentric misunderstandings of the term power.  It has absolutely no support, whatsoever. in any conventional analysis.  Power is ALWAYS REPRESENTED AS JOULES which is vi dt.  Else it's NOT POWER.  It's WATTAGE - or vi.

NOW.  To that OUT AND IN nonsense.  The energy delivered by the battery is expected to deplete the amount of potential difference at that battery supply source.   It can, indeed, be argued that it comes out of that supply source.  BUT.  By the same token another reader can determine that actually he means IN - as the energy delivered INTO the circuit.  And then.  What comes OUT of the circuit as work - must be the energy that was first put IN?  You see the problem I trust?  It is TOO AMBIGUOUS a reference to justify any kind of classical endorsement. EVER.  Science has a proud tradition of clarity.  While there are those who prefer to be obtuse in the forlorn hopes of thereby sounding clever, it is not a practice that our scientists will indulge.  They need PERFECT CLARITY.  While one can, with the best will in the world - recommend any variations to our standard references - it must first be understood that those variations will clarify - rather than confuse - our argument.  When and if they simply cloud the issue - when they befuddle clear science with ambiguities and pretentious muddled thinking  - then they're better avoided like the plague.  There is nothing wrong with standard terminologies.  Energy is delivered by a supply source and it is dissipated over a circuit.  It's that simple.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is the second part of that argument.

Now.  Back to the determination of the current that flows as a result of potential difference  as it applies - to his circuit schematic.  It is understood that current from a battery supply MUST be first sourced from the potential difference at that battery supply.   It is - self evidently - the SOURCE of the energy that can then be applied to the workstation of the circuit.  Now here's the thing.  The voltage or potential difference that is measured across that work station - that resistor - is transferred - somehow from the battery to that circuit component during the flow of current.  This is standard.  But in that transfer the voltage across that workstation is always in ANTI POLARITY OR ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the source.  And while that circuit is closed and while that current is allowed to flow - then it will REMAIN THERE - FIXED AND UNVARYING - except as it may reduce in synch with the reduction in the voltage from the battery supply.  Which - in turn - is determined by the rate of current flow.  And the amount of potential difference at the battery is measured as watt hours.  IT DOES NOT GENERATE A NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW ITSELF.  EVER.  It simply is an induced voltage that is measurable.  That's it. 

SO. The amount of energy that is delivered by the battery supply source is NEVER a product of the negative voltage measured across the load resistor.  That has absolutely nothing to do with the current flowing through a circuit.  And this and indeed those unusual and preferred acronyms of POUT AND PIN are the source of Poynty's confusions.  And these confusions  have littered his analysis of all power measurements to date.  And that is the justification that he relies on to REFUTE OUR CLAIM.  It is unfortunate.  The more so as he has assured you all that it is OUR WORK that is flawed and that it is my efforts that are laughable.  And it is precisely the Ramsets of this world who are thereby convinced that our analysis is GROSSLY FLAWED and therefore there is NO EVIDENCE TO DATE OF OVER UNITY.  INDEED THERE IS.  Lots of it.  Ours is just another example.

Which is also why I was most anxious to have this public discussion with Poynty Point.  Frankly I'm getting rather tired of all his scoffing the more so as it seems that those pretentious scientists on his forum seem to assume any kind of authority at all - in their analysis of energy.  The worst of it is that there are many members here who they convince.  It's tragic.  That such unscientific protocols ever carry any kind of credence at all.  Which is why I'm increasingly alarmed when I see them look to more and more victims to denounce as pretenders.  When all the while it is THEY who are simply pretending to any kind of authority at all using the established scientific protocols in any misapplication that they choose.  And then POURING SCORN on those of us who PROTEST.  Golly.

It intrigues me too that they assume that such criticisms could be prejudicial to their reputations.  None of them disclose their real names.  And to a man - they are willing to allege any kind of abuse on those such as me and our good names.  And they get away with it.  Extraordinary. Worst still - they're effective.  I'm reasonably satisfied that Ramset has been entirely convinced by them that our claims are false.  It's a crying shame.  They simply are not. Our measurements are unarguable. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary