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,

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)

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.

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

And when he does explain it to you... he will become another one of your former friends who now are classed as idiots in your mind ... because he will tell you the same thing PW has been telling you and you will deny it and claim that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Hi Tk,

If you go by the device schematic in Rosemary's BLOG site and two other locations that she claims is the wrong "Qray" whatever configuration .....

The shunt resistors R4, R5, R6 and R7 are shown to each have a inductance of 275nh

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 

And just where did those figures come from? That is a sim, right? Designed to mimic the behavior of the circuit?

4 resistors in parallel with 275 nH inductance each should total about 69 nH, isn't it?

TK, FTC,

Is that a sim from .99?  If so, maybe he can tell us where those values came from.

TK, are you fairly certain of your inductance measurements?

All the others being discussed are much lower.

PW

And just where did those figures come from? That is a sim, right? Designed to mimic the behavior of the circuit?

4 resistors in parallel with 275 nH inductance each should total about 69 nH, isn't it?

Hey TK,

That circuit is the same as paper #2 and your right the BLOG http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links is a sim circuit with those figures shown ... unknown where the those figures came from but the schematic is the NERD's not .99's

There is a prior blog post http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/120-revised-report.html#links with ....

5. SIMULATION
 5.1 The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 ( Figure 7 ) and simulated in correlation with the above tests ( Figure 8 ).

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 

TK,

I have a few questions regarding that scope shot, particularly if the text is correct regarding the FG being at full negative offset.

In any event, I do not see how the CSR inductance can be estimated from that shot.  As this is critical to power calculations, I assume it will be addressed with greater clarity in the future, or at least a non-inductive resistor used.

As for now regarding your circuit, and not being certain what resistors RA used, I do not know what to tell you.  Possibly .99 has some suggestions.

I believe you said you checked your LCR meter against a "known".  Are you fairly confident in your inductance measurement of the shunt resistors?  Enough so that you do not feel it necessary to try an alternate meaurement of one of the ten watters with the FG, etc?

PW