another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Magluvin]

Well what if we have heard it all before and we are not really interested in hearing it again, how would that grab ya?

What if we dont care?  Then again, why do you?  Thats the kicker.

Why is it that you feel the need to throw all this"weve heard it all before" across these pages?

Its your duty? Or is it your job?  Probably.  Only someone who needs a an aderal would embark on that lonely journey on their own.

Mags

[Bob Smith]

Hi Rosie,
Glad to see you're keeping a sense of humour about some of these remarks. Tho' not a daily follower of this thread, I do drop in from time to time, and have enjoyed your work since it first began appearing. I have to say I've been intrigued by your emergent paradigm for understanding our electrical universe, and the potential pathways through a rather ossified morass of assumptions that it may offer. It clearly involves a shift of horizon, terminology, and of course, possibilities. And why not?

Alas, when beset by such paradigm shifts, most inquiring minds formed within the shared horizons of their functional specialties, with common terminology based on commonly ascribed-to assumptions based on commonly accepted postulates which are themselves products of their time and setting... (okay, take a breath, Bobby ... Most choose to scorn those who would dare challenge them to engage in what the late, great Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan would have termed, a "lateral differentiation of consciousness."  Their loss, Rosie, but ah, thou knowest well...

Languishing on their Liliput, they view the dark waters of separation between themselves and distant verdant isles with self-assured relief, knowing that the stable divisions of flora and fauna and corresponding taxonomies will continue to perpetuate the grand stasis of their cosmos.  The flotsam washing ashore can be burned, and occasional visitor bearing strange gifts and stories of new ways, sights and sounds can be turned away.

Forge on Madame! Damn the torpedoes!  And though some deign to vote you off the proverbial island, the proof shall be in the pudding, and some pudding it shall be!  All the best to you.
Bob

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Bob,

What can I say but WOW.  Love the prose.  And many thanks for the support.  You're rare, a rare event on this battle scarred thread.  And I, like you, am looking forward to it's conclusion.  Them paradigms - they's shift'n.  Just an enduring shame that one first needs to endure a confrontation. I think we're looking at the bloodstained aftermath of a full on incursion.  But the comfort is that we're listening to that 'death rattle' of an archaic mindset.  LOUD - but INEVITABLE.

Just copying your post again.  I need to keep it in focus.

Kindest and best Bobby - and more to the point.  THANK YOU.

Rosie 

Hi Rosie,
Glad to see you're keeping a sense of humour about some of these remarks. Tho' not a daily follower of this thread, I do drop in from time to time, and have enjoyed your work since it first began appearing. I have to say I've been intrigued by your emergent paradigm for understanding our electrical universe, and the potential pathways through a rather ossified morass of assumptions that it may offer. It clearly involves a shift of horizon, terminology, and of course, possibilities. And why not?

Alas, when beset by such paradigm shifts, most inquiring minds formed within the shared horizons of their functional specialties, with common terminology based on commonly ascribed-to assumptions based on commonly accepted postulates which are themselves products of their time and setting... (okay, take a breath, Bobby ... Most choose to scorn those who would dare challenge them to engage in what the late, great Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan would have termed, a "lateral differentiation of consciousness."  Their loss, Rosie, but ah, thou knowest well...

Languishing on their Liliput, they view the dark waters of separation between themselves and distant verdant isles with self-assured relief, knowing that the stable divisions of flora and fauna and corresponding taxonomies will continue to perpetuate the grand stasis of their cosmos.  The flotsam washing ashore can be burned, and occasional visitor bearing strange gifts and stories of new ways, sights and sounds can be turned away.

Forge on Madame! Damn the torpedoes!  And though some deign to vote you off the proverbial island, the proof shall be in the pudding, and some pudding it shall be!  All the best to you.
Bob

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys.

This is for our esteemed Professor Emeritus, Steven E Jones, and submitted - notwithstanding the attendant risk of keeping things 'topical'.  It's a gentle reminder that we're investigating those rather eccentric 'justifications' that Poynty is using to deny us his PRIZE.   

There's a new 'mind set' evolving in science thinking - that is largely fertilized by the rotting carcase of 'old school thinking' and some liberal application of coprolites.  In a rather futile effort to DENY THE EVIDENCE - this school is now proposing to argue that a battery - in the process of discharging its potential difference - is delivering a NEGATIVE current flow.     Which then results in a NEGATIVE wattage.  Now. Negative wattage, in terms of our standard model - results in a 'recharge' of the supply.  Therefore, rather confusingly  - and according to this reasoning, (or its 'abuse', depending on which 'school' one prefers) then we have that curious anomaly of admitting that every time a battery delivers it's current - we do NOT have a 'discharge' BUT a RECHARGE.  In effect, Poynty Point is earnestly recommending that we all IGNORE the obvious depletion of potential difference in all our known and standard battery applications, and somehow - through nothing more arduous than the application of A WILD AND UNSUBSTANTIATED hope, and against all evidence to the contrary - we can thereby convince ourselves  that our batteries will LAST FOREVER.  AND THAT WAY.  When we DO claim that our batteries are NOT discharging potential difference - THEN?  He's dealt with the argument.  He's saying that NOR SHOULD WE.     OR.  CONVERSELY, he can then also argue that - IF and WHEN we measure a 'negative wattage' it is based on the erroneous assumption that we first EXPECT a repletion of potential difference.  And he's covered this point.  There is none. 

And NOR, indeed - is this any kind of argument for anything at all.  It's a thinking that's emerging - like the 'walking dead' - in defiance of EXPECTATION, in defiance of the standard model and in defiance of ALL ODDS.  Let me remind you of what that standard model requires.  When a current is discharged from a battery supply then it is consistent with the polarity of the voltage from that supply.  Convention requires that the amount of energy that is delivered - is consistent with the amount of energy dissipated over the circuit material.  And this invariably results in a loss of potential difference.  And the power, or the rate at which that energy is transferred - is consistent with a positive wattage.  Our scientists depend on that CONVENTION.  Our learned and revered teach us that CONVENTION.  Our GREATS have explained the logic behind that CONVENTION.  And our poor measuring instruments just do what they're told and they COMPUTE according to that CONVENTION.  But Poynty Point, is DISREGARDING this CONVENTION.  He's crossing his fingers and arguing something that is wildly improbable and entirely unjustified.  And it seems that Bubba supports his thinking - or confuses this with Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  And - to boot - Gravock and others - who VOCIFEROUSLY DENY OUR CLAIMS -  are endorsing this - by DEFAULT.  Because NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE SPOKEN OUT IN PROTEST.

Hopefully our dear Professor will do this on their behalf.  Surely there is still SOMEONE out there who can defend our standard measurement protocols?  Can't wait to hear your arguments Professor.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

changed 'depletion' to 'repletion'.

[poynt99]

Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99