Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

"I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors.  Why would I bother?  We're not talking marginal values.  There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence.  "

That's right, none of the objections apply to YOU, they only apply to ME.

The sign of my wattage values is the same as yours. The shape of my power curve is the same as yours. If objections about impedance and reactance and inductance apply to ME, then they apply to YOU as well. If I correct errors immediately... if indeed they are errors under the circumstances... then so should YOU. If inductances are helpful for YOU as you claim in your paper then they are helpful for ME as well. You cannot apply your usual double standard here and get away with it, poser.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I spent some time in the past trying to locate manufacturer data regarding a similarly packaged 10 watt resistor in a non-inductive design.  I found several manufacturers that claim to make non-inductive resistors in that package but they do not seem to be "off the shelf" , nor was I able to locate any data sheets regarding them.  Seems I always ran into "contact the manufacturer".

PW

Well, among all the noise above we appear to have a clear statement that she did NOT use special non-inductive resistors. 
So I still don't understand that 110 nH listing, because it certainly doesn't jive with my measurements of my OTS resistors.
I have an opinion about that number, though, and until I'm shown otherwise I'll just have to believe in my opinion.

But we are also assured that it doesn't matter in the least. So one wonders why MY inductance matters, if hers doesn't.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

"I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors.  Why would I bother?  We're not talking marginal values.  There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence.  "

That's right, none of the objections apply to YOU, they only apply to ME.

The sign of my wattage values is the same as yours. The shape of my power curve is the same as yours. If objections about impedance and reactance and inductance apply to ME, then they apply to YOU as well. If I correct errors immediately... if indeed they are errors under the circumstances... then so should YOU. If inductances are helpful for YOU as you claim in your paper then they are helpful for ME as well. You cannot apply your usual double standard here and get away with it, poser.

Since we KNOW that you're attempting to throw considerable levels of doubt on our work - I would think it would be advisable to present your own work in a reasonably realistic way.  100 watts or thereby is a HUGE value.  Utterly unrealistic.  I suspect you were hoping that no-one would notice.  Or you had not yourself noticed.  Or that it would be discounted precisely because of it's excess.  In any eventuality - notwithstanding - it was intended for 'spin'.  Hardly a professional and considered 'fact'.   And then you follow this us with that clumsy attempt at sarcasm where you ask 'Can I now have my prize?'  Are you capable of understating anything at all?  Are you that one dimensional?

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

But we are also assured that it doesn't matter in the least. So one wonders why MY inductance matters, if hers doesn't.

It doesn't matter.  Not in the least.  What matters is that you did not refer to it's need - to be calculated into that wattage value that you presented with such an inappropriate flourish.  That's where the 'spin' comes in.  And if there's been some 'noise' as you put - since then - it's served its purpose.  You clearly are NOT investigating anything at all.  You're trying to present 'gross' evidence of a subtle principle that entirely eludes you.  Even now.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Respect this:

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.