You don't need such high wattage for the CSR, I'll bet you could live with 4 to 8 half-watt carbons paralleled.

PW

No you couldn't.  Not at the current levels we measure.

Rosemary

Rosemary,

I do not believe I mentioned "respectfully" (or disrespectfully) regarding my discussions with you.

Please reread my post.

PW

Forum guidelines require nothing more than respect.  I am not obliged to answer your questions.  Nor will I.  Not until I see the required professionalism and impartiality associated with this science.  And not until I see respect for both me and for our work.  Both are lacking.  Which is a gross understatement of the fact.  And your own 'question' emphases have been based on erroneous assumptions - that having been addressed are then IGNORED.  One would, under normal circumstances acknowledge that error of 'assumption'.  I'm specifically referring to your very first question that dominated my own thread and that was then followed by 5 pages of pure calumny - 41 posts in one night - where you and TK et al - simply assumed that your 'emphasis' was correct.  It was not.

Rosemary

"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.

"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

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.

Respect this:

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

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

Show us where you ever referred to the "need" in your papers. The only passage is the one I've already quoted, and there is no indication anywhere that you did anything other than what I did.Especially in the shot below, where your "mean power" is very close to my ORIGINAL calculation.... which might not be an "error" at all.