Sadly, and no doubt coincidentally, @gmeast has replied to one of my posts after I have been blocked. I am therefore unable to relay to him exactly where he stated that he observer "only" an 0.8v drop in the course of his run.

ETA: for your convenience, Greg, the last paragraph of reply #92 on the "basic circuit" thread, where you state:

"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing"

It is INDEED important. Just not the way you seem to think it is.

I sort if expected RA to act that way fairly quickly - when I went to the author of the Wikipedia entry she was relying on and asked him to confirm first hand that her interpretation was incorrect, she characterized it as an attack - but I was surprised at @gmeast who Ive assumed was working in good faith.

It doesn't help that she was deleting my posts and then misrepresenting what I'd said.

I genuinely believe there's absolutely no face lost in conceding an error such as this. But his reaction is questionable.

It would be nice, but as soon as he did, I imagine their TOS would be changed to include "posting the images elsewhere" as a criminal actionable offense.

It would be nice, but as soon as he did, I imagine their TOS would be changed to include "posting the images elsewhere" as a criminal actionable offense.

Nahh.... ever since he sent her his picture, she's got the severe hots for .99. Her knees quiver. I think she probably keeps it as a desktop background. He can do no wrong, and I'm sure she believes that he will eventually come to understand that the only possible explanation for her waveforms is the zipon, arriving twice as before as it went. The LeCroy does not lie!

(He is a lot better looking than I am, I'll happily concede that.)

I too initally believed gmeast to be acting in good faith and to be a person of integrity, since he quickly identified the problem with the 555 timer published, and never corrected, by Ainslie so long ago in the Quantum magazine article.

But after this latest, I see that I was mistaken.  He resorts to the same kind of lying misrepresentation and claims without reference, the same kinds of self-contradiction, the same kinds of personal insults and innuendo as his mentor.

Up until now I didn't know what a 'TK' was. I thought it might be a tea pot manufacturer. So I searched for it and found TK's thread.  He/She/It suggested that I might be using clip leads for my circuit connects and also that I am in error using PWM percentages to define my power percentages.  I also believe there was also some crowing of some sort.  I also noticed after logging on to OU.com, I could not reply directly to this tread ... yes "tread".  Fine ... a bunch of school girls just listening to themselves.

Nobody except Ainslie is blocked from replying directly to this "tread", unless Stefan has blocked them for some reason of his own.

Now... just where have I suggested that gmeast is in error for using "PWM percentages to define his power percentages?" I'd like to see a link to the precise place I said that and just how I may have said it..... since I've carried out tutorials on just how to use digital oscilloscopes and their math functions including live realtime integration of instantaneous power curves to give total energy integrals.........

And surely gmeast knows that only people who are registered on that forum are allowed to see the images... unlike here, where all is revealed to everyone who is curious.

And I'm also wondering just where anyone insulted gmeast personally yet. But we can certainly start, if that's how he wants to play.
Even though he has now revealed himself as a bigoted, sexist, bloviating idiot liar who contradicts himself then whines about it later trying to change the meaning. 'NOT MORE THAN 0.8 VOLTS'.... well, if it was not more than, say 0.7 volts, or not more than 0.78 volts.... why not say that then?  Gmeast reported a voltage drop of 0.8 volts on his 24 volt battery supply, plain and simple, and now he's trying to weasel out of that report.
The facts remain:
Gmeast found that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article did not perform as claimed.
Gmeast is not using the circuit published by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not using an equivalent load to that used by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not operating at the same frequency as Ainslie.
And so on. In short, he has actually refuted Ainslie's claims in the Quantum article by NOT BEING ABLE to reproduce her effects using the published circuit, or even another circuit operating at the claimed duty cycle and frequency of the Quantum article. He has reported these facts and then he has proceeded to allow distortions of the interpretation of these facts to proceed unchecked. The Quantum circuit has no diode, no mosfet gate driver, and has a timer that produces a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load. This is not the circuit gmeast is testing or reporting on.

@.99
Thanks for looking; I didn't think I had said anything like what he claimed wrt PWM power computation. He's probably gotten confused by some of the many absurd things RA herself has said about power computations, averaging, DC vs PWM vs AC, and so on.

Nice armour, by the way!

I hope it's holding up to the corrosive environment you have to deal with.

Is there any  news about when RA will be showing us how she makes that Paper 2, Figure 2 scopeshot?  These replications of her own work do not require special noninductive shunts or bypass caps on the batteries, they must be done with the exact apparatus used to make them the first time, of course! And so there should be no reason for delay in presenting these replications, that were promised to us many times, beginning months ago, even with specific days and times (By dinnertime, God willing) ....
These replications must of course be performed with intact mosfets wired as she has been claiming -- that is, according to the schematic in Paper 1-- , a full 6 battery stack at 73 volts or more, and a period of about 160 seconds, with 15-second gate HI duty cycle, with a positive 10-12 volts at the gate of Q1 but no current shown at all in the CVR during those gate HI times -- the key points to be addressed in her replication.

I'm also wondering how she intends to show that the mosfets are functioning properly before and after reproducing that scopeshot.

No offense taken polln8r.
 
 

175ml of water was heated 14.4C in 3 hours taking .9766867Watts to do that, but the heating circuit used only .43885Watts to do it.

Astounding. Gmeast can achieve precision to the tenth of a microWatt. Why, that is ten thousand times better than MOAC, which can measure to the milliWatt in good conditions-- and it is considered to be one of the world's most precise bulk calorimeters in civilian labs.

Either that.... or his numbers are wrong. After all, in the other part he is saying .43885 Watts is the actual value. A hundredth of a milliWatt precision, only 100 times better than MOAC can achieve after a week of stabilization and calibration.  Not .43884, or .43886, or even what I might say, "About 0.4 Watts". So if the actual value is NOT found to be 0.43885 Watts exactly.... his numbers are wrong.

Someone should remind this scientific researcher gmeast, experienced as he is, that the result of his computations cannot possibly be more precise than the LEAST PRECISE of his measurements. Sig digs and all that there neat stuff.

A tenth of a microWatt precision in the answer ... when the temperature rise is specified to the tenth of a degree C and the water quantity to the nearest milliLiter... if that.
I laugh in my coffee... all eight ounces of it.