Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

LOL TK.  That's exactly what I mean.  By the same token I could keep on keeping on about your own rather 'gross' inaccuracies.  Unlike you I have no such compelling need.  They speak for themselves.

At last.   I've had a laugh.  Thank you.
Rosie Posie

You've seen what I do when I'm shown a "mistake". What do you do? You STILL have not posted a correction to that howler above and your conclusion, since the math is wrong, is WRONG. Where is your correction and retraction?

You do not even understand how you went wrong, so you CANNOT post a correct calculation.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You've seen what I do when I'm shown a "mistake". What do you do? You STILL have not posted a correction to that howler above and your conclusion, since the math is wrong, is WRONG. Where is your correction and retraction?

You do not even understand how you went wrong, so you CANNOT post a correct calculation.

My dear TK.  If you need to pretend that there's been no retraction I fully understand why.  Otherwise you will not be able to refer to this again and again.  But don't let me stop you.  It's comical.  I thoroughly enjoy seeing your reliance on this.  I'm sure as do our readers.  And as ever, it shows how 'thin' is your arsenal.  That's much required.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

Did you ever get around to asking your team about .99's annotated 'scope shot or my observation regarding Q1?

And again, even by your own +6 volt reading, Q1 should have been indicating, via the CSR, that current was flowing.

PW

(Added the second sentence)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

Did you ever get around to asking your team about .99's annotated 'scope shot or my observation regarding Q1?


PW

I did indeed.  My own scope has been sent for calibration certification.  It should have been returned last Thursday.  Now only to come next Thursday.  The guy who's working on it will explain all to me.  Then I'll let Poynty Point know.  And then he can let you know.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

My dear TK.  If you need to pretend that there's been no retraction I fully understand why.  Otherwise you will not be able to refer to this again and again.  But don't let me stop you.  It's comical.  I thoroughly enjoy seeing your reliance on this.  I'm sure as do our readers.  And as ever, it shows how 'thin' is your arsenal.  That's much required.

Rosie Pose

A simple link to your retraction would have been a much better... and valid... refutation. But you have made no correction or retraction. PROVE ME WRONG by linking to your post where you correct your calculation and retract your claim of exceeding the battery capacity with that one test.


Here's a post you made well AFTER you were shown your errors in the earlier 25.6 million Joule fiasco.

Let's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms.  The source voltage is 220 volts.  The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you.  While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.

You don't  know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. That is a real problem.

Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.