Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

LOL.  For 'correct' read 'incorrect'.  For calculations read 'adventure'.  And as for me being a lying idiot - I forgive you.  I see why you need to claim this.  You're out of your depth.  And you've run out of invective.

As ever.
Rosie Pose

As ever is right. As ever blowhard arrogant egotistical and WRONG you are, and you clearly intend to remain wrong.

FIND A SINGLE PERSON WHO WILL AGREE WITH YOUR POSTS OF TODAY. Just one. YOU CANNOT. Yet there are plenty who will agree with PW and with me.

NOT EVEN YOUR TROLLS can justify your present set of egregious misstatements and insults.

You accuse me of being unscientific when all I am demanding is that you SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS and CORRECT YOUR ERRORS. How is that unscientific? Only in the twisted lexicon of Ains-lies.

[picowatt]

I am very interested in discussing our technology.  The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper.  There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model.  And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence.  It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity.  Me.  I'm Mrs Average.  And good science NEVER needs more than that.   I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us.  We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak. 

Rosie Pose

So how do you explain the neg mean pwr measurements that TK and .99's sims are able to produce when using your measurement methods?

Do you believe any circuit from which a neg mean pwr measurement can be made is operating non-conventionally?

Does your neg mean pwr measurement mean something different when measured in your circuit than it does when measured in TK's circuit or .99's sims? 

And again, a watt is a watt.  Please show me where the formula for watts has a "time" component in it.  Last I checked, it was just VxI.

PW

[TinselKoala]

I am very interested in discussing our technology.  The results are PRECISELY why we've written that paper.  There is NO WAY that a negative wattage can be factored into the standard model. 

You have been shown for YEARS just how your results DO fit into "the standard model" : they are errors caused by your improper test procedures, which has also been explained to you over and over. There are posts on the NS threads that are nearly word-for-word clones of posts here where these topics are explained to you.

And IF I've reminded you about anything at all it's my self-confessed lack of anything other than a functional intelligence. 

YOU have not got the prerequisite education to understand the concepts you are trying to discuss, this is evident DAILY in something or other that you say, and reading popular books like "Dancing Wu Li Masters" does not a physics education make.

It is you and TK who try to advance the concept that you are both geniuses based on the rather precious and extraordinary early promiscuity.

What is this supposed to mean? Early promiscuity? Whaat? Personally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA. Ainslie--- a highschool dropout with not even algebra and geometry education. Nobody except Ainslie has "claimed" to be a genius. We are just educated, and we know how to use what we've learned, and we know how to CONTINUE learning.

I'm Mrs Average.  And good science NEVER needs more than that.   I'm sure that's a comfort to the most of us.  We're not inclined to speculate on the colours of that Emperor's cloak. 

Rosie Pose

You are far from average, Ainslie. You are a Dunning-Kruger Effect textbook example.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No Leon.  And instantaneous power measurement is an instantaneous power measurement.  A watt is ALWAYS factored over time.  IF this is a science forum - which one assumes - then you are advancing something that is ABSOLUTELY NOT science. 

YOU IDIOT. A Watt is an INSTANTANEOUS MEASUREMENT. It is a RATE of energy dissipation. A WATT IS A JOULE PER SECOND.

And THIS is the proof that you really have no clue.  AGAIN.  A WATT is the amount of energy factored OVER TIME.  No amount of disclaiming by you will alter this simple fact.  And the longer you persist in this denial the more utterly discreditable you become.  Which makes your earlier and repeated criticisms of my definitions - laughably inappropriate.  JUST LOOK UP WIKI - if you're not going to refer to that VENERABLE authority that you published earlier - MR RALPH J SMITH.  Instantaneous power is MEANINGLESS.  Power measurements always need reference to time.  And the very first qualification is the duty cycle which is applied in any switched circuit.  You seem to forget that there are those readers here who KNOW how wrong you are.  And IF picowatt takes the trouble to confirm this your definition of a watt - then he is equally WRONG.  20 watts are 'roughly' equal to instantaneous power.  But instantaneous power - as mentioned - is MEANINGLESS.  We are - first and foremost - actually obliged to determine the RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated - if we're to do power analysis.  And that requires an analysis over TIME.  So WATTS is, in that sense a RATE.

AVERAGE POWER is the instantaneous power averaged over time. THAT is it. Instantaneous power is what you get when you multiply all those points by all those other points. YOU DON'T GET AVERAGE POWER until you factor in the time.

Which makes this just a whole lot of nonsense.

AGAIN, this is at the heart of your fundamental confusion about the meaning of the Watt and the Joule.

Which actually means that you're PERFECTLY explaining your own confusions.

Is a MILE the same thing as a MILE PER HOUR? No, of course it isn't. One is a QUANTITY and the other is a RATE. You are confusing your quantities with your rates and as long as you do you will continue to make these hopeless blunders.

Actually this is ridiculous.  You are the one who is UTTERLY confused and UTTERLY wrong.  And my saying this is NOT likely to convince you.  But at least we ALL now KNOW where your own confusions lie.

Rosie Posie.

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

It's a shame.  For a moment there you demonstrated a bit of knowledge with respect to calculating average power.  I for one was impressed.

Then you have to go and say something like a watt always has a time component figured into it and totally negate that moment of brilliance.  What is "(V)x(A)" the formula for?

Some people just don't know to quit while they are ahead.

PW