another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99 · February 01, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 01:26:03 PM
My dear Poynty Point,

WITH PLEASURE. NOW we can move on.

DO YOU AGREE THAT THE APPLIED MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS ARE CORRECT

DO YOU AGREE THAT SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THOSE RESULTS THAT YOU WILL CONCEDE THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED AN ENERGY TRANSFER THAT IS GREATER THAN ZERO?

Regards,
Rosemary

There is a whole slew of items that would need to be agreed upon, one of which would be the measurement protocol.

In addition to the measurement protocol, we would need to agree that:

1) The INPUT power has to be confirmed (and agree with each other within an agreed upon percentage, say 5%) with at least two different measurement methods.

2) I would have full license to place instrument probes where I wish, as long as it is within the agreed upon measurement protocol.

Rosemary Ainslie · February 01, 2012, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 01:45:58 PM

There is a whole slew of items that would need to be agreed upon, one of which would be the measurement protocol.

I PROPOSE YOU COMPILE THAT LIST

Quote from: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 01:45:58 PMIn addition to the measurement protocol, we would need to agree that:

1) The INPUT power has to be confirmed (and agree with each other within an agreed upon percentage, say 5%) with at least two different measurement methods.

You better be considerably clearer than this. I've NO idea what you mean. There is an established protocal tht determines this. If you plan to apply that absurd nonsense of multiplying negative voltages with positive current flows - then actually that's not negotiable.

Quote from: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 01:45:58 PM2) I would have full license to place instrument probes where I wish, as long as it is within the agreed upon measurement protocol.

You can measure what you want. The only thing you can't do is measure at inappropriate points. I think we better agree exactly WHERE measurements become inappropriate.

Lots to do Poynty. You'll be busy. Just warn Professor Steven E Jones - that he's likely going to have to part with his coins.

Regards,
Rosemary

poynt99 · February 01, 2012, 02:11:34 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 01:53:58 PM
You better be considerably clearer than this. I've NO idea what you mean. There is an established protocal tht determines this.

I mean what I said. TWO different measurement methods must agree.

Quote
If you plan to apply that absurd nonsense of multiplying negative voltages with positive current flows - then actually that's not negotiable.

I'm afraid the power polarity issue is going to be a show stopper if you can't wrap your head around the simple concept that the power polarities of sources and loads are OPPOSITE.

Rosemary Ainslie · February 01, 2012, 02:15:55 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 02:11:34 PM
I mean what I said. TWO different measurement methods must agree.

OUTLINE ALL INTENDED MEASUREMENT METHODS.

Quote from: poynt99 on February 01, 2012, 02:11:34 PMI'm afraid the power polarity issue is going to be a show stopper if you can't wrap your head around the simple concept that the power polarities of sources and loads are OPPOSITE.

STICK TO THE POINT Poynty. WE DETAIL OUR PROBE POSITIONS IN THAT PAPER. YOU NEED TO AGREE ON THEM.

Regards
as ever
Rosie Pose

poynt99 · February 01, 2012, 02:22:12 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 01, 2012, 02:15:55 PM
WE DETAIL OUR PROBE POSITIONS IN THAT PAPER.

IRRELEVANT!

You need to understand that the power polarities of Sources and Loads are OPPOSITE.