Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: another Self looped Generator Claim  (Read 66605 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #135 on: August 27, 2013, 05:25:02 PM »
"I did not come here to fight, but found here your post attacking me and my work which is not cool or a great way to get to know each other. Perhaps you might consider the subject matter presented rather than nitpicking "sig digs"."

Oh, yes, you did come here to fight.

I had to go back five pages to see what you were talking about, and it is off the topic of this thread. Did I attack YOU? I don't believe I did. I pointed out that the figures you cite are wrong, and I demonstrated WHY they are wrong, and I also told you what I think when someone tries to foist off WRONG data on me instead of dealing with factual issues.

You claim, apparently, that your results are accurate to all those figures. I say they aren't and they cannot be, and I've told you why, with support from REALITY that all competent experimenters and engineers respect. If you want to challenge that, the way to do it is FIRST to demonstrate that you understand sig digs, which so far you have not done, especially in your last, insulting, post, and SECOND... to demonstrate that your numbers are indeed that precise.... or change them so that they reflect the TRUTH in the degree of precision that you can manage.

If you like, I can attack YOU too, since you appear to be another classic Dunning-Kruger example and you can't deal with the actual issues I raise but would rather attack ME instead. Fine, you invited yourself, even if you can't make a part that is exactly 10.0005 inches long. Maybe you should put up your CNC machines and go back to basics for a while... at least until you can make a part that is accurate to, say, four sig digs. Can you at least do that? Make a part that is, for example, 10.05 inches long? Can you at least demonstrate that you understand the difference between MACHINING TOLERANCES, and SIGNIFICANT DIGITS ?

How many significant digits do you see in the measurement I am making here?  Do you want me to get out my micrometers, or perhaps the Mettler H-10? How about my Philips PM6676 counter which is a _calibrated_ instrument traceable to NIST standards and gives a frequency reading accurate to NINE sig digs?


No... I've got a better idea. How about YOU justify YOUR work and YOUR claims, in another thread that you start yourself, since this one is about Chuckie Pierce's failed demonstration and his continuing promises -- and failures -- to show something working.

Temporal Visitor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #136 on: August 27, 2013, 07:16:45 PM »
I apologize. - There you have it, I am Man enough to do so and it is not too hard to do so: when I am wrong.

Will that suffice?

FACT is we both may work "to" 0.0001" - however neither of us are able to honestly "hold" 0.0001" for that fact 1 degree of temperature change blows the best efforts.  FACT is all the rest of your insults are baseless. I will leave you as I found you: not worth the effort.


So how many digits of precision do you work with when you make a part that is 10.005 inches long? How about 10.0005? Can't you work to the ten-thousandth of an inch? Not a very good machinist then, are you. There are SIX SIGNIFICANT DIGITS in the dimension 10.0005, dear sir.

And if you don't believe that I can work to tolerances of greater than one-ten-thousandth of an inch.... you have never honed a cylinder to fit a piston.

I note that you do not understand the issue and you prefer to bloviate and insult instead of face the FACTS.

After you look up Significant Digits, and machining tolerances.... you may apologize. But I doubt if you will. You cannot refute me, though.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #137 on: August 27, 2013, 08:14:10 PM »
I apologize. - There you have it, I am Man enough to do so and it is not too hard to do so: when I am wrong.

Will that suffice?

FACT is we both may work "to" 0.0001" - however neither of us are able to honestly "hold" 0.0001" for that fact 1 degree of temperature change blows the best efforts.  FACT is all the rest of your insults are baseless. I will leave you as I found you: not worth the effort.

Apology accepted, even if it is delivered from your left hand.

FACT is that I said you were wrong, and why, and I object to people presenting wrong data to me in an effort to dazzle me. That is not an insult, and it is the truth.
FACT is that you called me a liar when I said I could do machining work to six significant digits of precision. That is an insult, and it is not the truth.

Bye, now.

(Did you look at my LTD Stirling engine, which uses a CARBON cylinder (coefficient of thermal expansion about 0.5 x 10e-6/degree K) honed to fit an aluminum piston, with no seals, rings or added lubrication, and HELIUM as the working gas? Runs on a cup of warm water, or backwards on snow or ice? And the helium stays inside? I laugh at your "one degree of temperature change".)

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #138 on: August 28, 2013, 02:00:55 AM »


FACT is we both may work "to" 0.0001" - however neither of us are able to honestly "hold" 0.0001" for that fact 1 degree of temperature change blows the best efforts.


Totally not true at all.  Where the heck did you learn machining?  We used to do that all day long and shipped tens of thousands of parts to our customer who measured them in QC (Over 1,000 miles away) and agreed we met the tolerances required.  (Government research contract)

Your statement is dependent on the material being machined...more exactly, the material's coefficient of thermal expansion.  We were machining aluminum oxide (99.7%) which has a low expansion.  There are some materials which your statement would be true to but to make a general statement about all materials shows very little knowledge of materials which also must mean very little knowledge of machining in general.

I was in the precision ceramic machining business for over 20 years so yes, I do know what I am talking about.

Bill

PS  What TK is talking about with the digits is machine operator basic machining 101 stuff...something a machinist would have learned before becoming a machinist.

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #139 on: August 28, 2013, 02:47:51 AM »
Hi TK, Just a clarity question or two. For my own benefit. I understand what you write about the "significant digits",
and it does make sense. However when I was calculating the MOI of my rotor I had a lot of input figures from previous calcs
that were quite a few digits to begin with even though I started with not very accurate measurements (in the big scheme of
things).

I'm sure you will remember as you had the same objection to my result. one of the input figures to the final calculations was
something like ( 0.000001893583- and many more digits ) For anything but the result I think it's best to keep all the digits if
possible to keep accuracy as good as can be and the "result" could be rounded back to as few digits as the person reading it
wants to. But if we talk a formula that gives us figures to work with that are very small for the scale we work in we can go
to a smaller scale. The way I see it if I said the result was 0.00000189 then I only went to three digits of accuracy in the
result because I dropped of the other 20 digits and rounded down.

Here is a question. How do we most accurately deal with many digit results during a calculation ? And if I were using, lets
say Watts is 0.00000189 really a very small amount if it's already rounded down from many more digits ? Isn't it just
another way to write 1.89 uWatts.

I don't understand how if a simple calculation gives a figure like 0.000001983583476297871  that that can be rounded back
to two decimal points and retain accuracy especially if the figure shows up in the middle of a set of calculations by continuing
with the large figures in the calcs sometimes they get small again. Rounding back the figure above to two or even four decimal places nets us a big Zero.

What is the most accurate result for this calculation if were to be carried through to further calculations.   0.0000152 kg x 0.000213 = 0.0000000032376.
remember that figure is then to continued in calculations.

Then if the "end" result ends up being something like 0.00000046328- and many more figures and I round it back to
0.000000463 the result still has more decimal places than the input figures, and I see it ad rounded back to three figures.

Most of us do not say "this is the actual accurate result" most of say "this is what the calculations give me".

The context under which the result is presented makes all the difference. In my opinion.

Often times when we convert to Farads or Henries the figure from the conversion has many decimal places to begin with
and we must convert to use the formula. How can we deal with that without numerous decimal places ?

Cheers



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #140 on: August 28, 2013, 04:15:59 AM »
@Farmhand:
Your question is basically "when do we perform the rounding" to the final digits that really are meaningful, in a long string of calculations. Right?

Well, when you are dealing with numbers like physical constants or integers, then you can take all of those digits as significant, sure. But consider this: when you make any measurement of anything physical, your measurement apparatus and technique will always be "rounding" the last digit of the readout. So, like in my caliper measurement above, I see 101.32 mm. That "2" on this instrument is telling me that the actual dimension could be anywhere between 101.315 and 101.325. (the endpoints may differ depending on the internal rounding algorithm; it could be ranging from 101.320 to 101.329, even.)
So, say you take this number as the measured length of a radius and you want to find the circumference of the circle. C = 2piR, and the "pi" and the "2" have infinite sig digs of precision. Integers are precise without question, and pi can be carried out to as many places as you have patience for. So what is your answer? Do you perform the calculation using sixteen digits of pi? If so, you get 636.612335323..... mm for the circumference, and using the 5 sig digs from the original measurement you would cite that as 636.61 mm and you could not measure it more precisely than that.
Or, using only 5 sig digs for pi, 3.1416, you get 636.613824 and citing only the correct 5 sig digs you get... 636.61 mm. And you could not measure it more precisely than that with your instruments.
The point is that you might as well only use the number of sig digs that is the least precise value, because by the time you get to the end of the calculation the extreme precision in the other numbers doesn't matter to the final result!

Don't forget that engineers did just fine using slide rules, that rarely gave more than three sig digs for _any_ calculation.

The issue of leading zeros. Are they significant, or not? Well, that is what scientific notation is for, to remind us that they are, in general, not "significant" in this use of the term.

Quote
Here is a question. How do we most accurately deal with many digit results during a calculation ? And if I were using, lets
say Watts is 0.00000189 really a very small amount if it's already rounded down from many more digits ? Isn't it just
another way to write 1.89 uWatts.

I don't understand how if a simple calculation gives a figure like 0.000001983583476297871  that that can be rounded back
to two decimal points and retain accuracy especially if the figure shows up in the middle of a set of calculations by continuing
with the large figures in the calcs sometimes they get small again. Rounding back the figure above to two or even four decimal places nets us a big Zero.
It depends on how you got to that number!  And you aren't rounding to "four decimal places" when you round 0.000001983583476297871 to  0.00000198, you are rounding to 8 decimal places, with three sig digs. 1.98 uW, with six places "hidden" in the "micro" expression. You don't wind up with zero by respecting sig digs!

Quote
What is the most accurate result for this calculation if were to be carried through to further calculations.   0.0000152 kg x 0.000213 = 0.0000000032376.
remember that figure is then to continued in calculations.


If those input numbers are the result of measurements, then the correct value should be cited as 0.00000000323, or 3.23x10e-9 or something like that. You can't really legitimately "round up" because you don't know, again, about the accuracy of those extra digits at all. Again, the "precision" of the extra 0.0000000000076 that you want to keep in will be lost in your final answer if you reduce at that point instead of now.

In the case of "pi" you can legitimately "round up" the last digit , like 3.14159.... becomes 3.1416, because you _do_ know that the 9 and other digits to the right are actually significant. But if you don't know that, like in your input numbers in the example, you should just drop the nonsig digs without rounding.

Quote

Then if the "end" result ends up being something like 0.00000046328- and many more figures and I round it back to
0.000000463 the result still has more decimal places than the input figures, and I see it ad rounded back to three figures.

Don't confuse "decimal places" with "significant digits". 

Wiki actually has a pretty good section on the "zero rules" for sig digs:

Quote
All non-zero digits are considered significant. For example, 91 has two significant figures (9 and 1), while 123.45 has five significant figures (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Zeros appearing anywhere between two non-zero digits are significant. Example: 101.1203 has seven significant figures: 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0 and 3.
Leading zeros are not significant. For example, 0.00052 has two significant figures: 5 and 2.
Trailing zeros in a number containing a decimal point are significant. For example, 12.2300 has six significant figures: 1, 2, 2, 3, 0 and 0. The number 0.000122300 still has only six significant figures (the zeros before the 1 are not significant). In addition, 120.00 has five significant figures since it has three trailing zeros. This convention clarifies the precision of such numbers; for example, if a measurement precise to four decimal places (0.0001) is given as 12.23 then it might be understood that only two decimal places of precision are available. Stating the result as 12.2300 makes clear that it is precise to four decimal places (in this case, six significant figures).
The significance of trailing zeros in a number not containing a decimal point can be ambiguous. For example, it may not always be clear if a number like 1300 is precise to the nearest unit (and just happens coincidentally to be an exact multiple of a hundred) or if it is only shown to the nearest hundred due to rounding or uncertainty. Various conventions exist to address this issue:
  A bar may be placed over the last significant figure; any trailing zeros following this are insignificant. For example, 1300 has three significant figures (and hence indicates that the number is precise to the nearest ten).
   The last significant figure of a number may be underlined; for example, "2000" has two significant figures.
   
the bars and underlines didn't come thru the formatting.. sorry.. check the original article in Wiki to see them...
Quote
A decimal point may be placed after the number; for example "100." indicates specifically that three significant figures are meant.[2]
   In the combination of a number and a unit of measurement, the ambiguity can be avoided by choosing a suitable unit prefix. For example, the number of significant figures in a mass specified as 1300 g is ambiguous, while in a mass of 13 h‍g or 1.3 kg it is not.
 

With modern calculators there isn't any reason to delete non-sig digs in intermediate calculations; since you are going to give your final answer using only the number of sig digs in the least precise input figure, you can "round" or drop the extra digits at the end of the process. But it does no harm to drop or round to sig digs at every stage where it matters, either, or you'd never get anywhere using a slide rule.

(Daddy, what's a slide rule? I don't know son, better ask your grand dad.)

 ;)

Sure, context is everything... and that's why I object in the way I do, when the use of many digits is done just to make the reader go "wow" but they don't mean anything at all. Except the more non-sig-digs there are, the more precisely "wrong" the answer is, even if the arithmetic that was used to get there is completely error-free. This is not an "arithmetic" issue, it is a data integrity and analysis issue.

Thanks for asking, I hope that I haven't confused you more than ever.

--TK

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #141 on: August 28, 2013, 04:51:46 AM »
Here'snoneohojhohvbb whyncnegncoy it'senaoscneeeg annoyinglnmolnn ton'oc=e seenoinonb superfluouscaeer meaninglesslno'udiurn digitsveaerac whensvaergaefaeec yousreareac areanocihncet tryingcerafacetaga tocean'vaetavavne evaluatenonsichiencee somenoihvoiyeince claimsno'inoihochentg ofdaercaeavaegag excessderafcvegaayv performancea'vdapoehgnerv.

Get it?

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #142 on: August 28, 2013, 08:08:44 PM »
Yep I get the "Here's why it's annoying to see superfluous meaningless digits when you are trying to evaluate some claims of excess performance."
I also get that it's annoying to nit pick on some little detail of misunderstanding while missing the big picture that this person may really have something of great significance.   Getting hung up on sig digs will potentially be a big loss.  I've had PM's with Temporal Visitor and understand why he is trying to share this info at this time and why it is important for him to share it very soon.   I wish I could say more but it's not my right to share his personal disclosures to me (unrelated to details of the device or how it works).    I believe it would be best to give this related 'self looped generator' some more consideration.   My opinion - everyone's choice.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #143 on: August 28, 2013, 08:36:00 PM »
It wouldn't be the first time that a great idea got ignored or scoffed at because it was presented poorly. I think this is the "fault" or responsibility of the presenter, though, not the audience.

It also wouldn't be the first time that bogus claims were hidden behind a wealth of superfluous detail, nor would it be the first time that an arrogant inventor claimed to have discovered something that not only violates well-established principles of engineering mechanics but contradicted actual experience... and turned out later to be utterly wrong. Once again... not the responsibility of the audience, but of the claimant.

"I believe it would be best to give this related 'self looped generator' some more consideration.  "
Well, you are certainly able to read the Charles Pierce "blog" reports on PESN, I think. How's Chuckie coming with his _already proven and patented and running his house in a blackout_ self-looped generator then? Abut ready for the live demo?

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #144 on: August 28, 2013, 09:29:14 PM »
I wasn't referring to Pierce's device but rather Temporal Visitor's device as covered on his web site.   I've come across enough talk of mechanical amplifiers lately that I think it's worth looking at in more detail.  I think his device involves this concept. 
Tesla found that mechanical power is relative to the "reference frame" within which it is created.  The implication is that if you make power in one reference frame and remove it from another, there can be either less or MORE power available from the system.  This leads directly to the development of "mechanical amplifiers".    That's more or less quoted from an email I got recently.   Several other people I consider high caliber inventors/researchers have also been seriously discussing this concept as shown by a number of inventors.   

arayasoma

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: another Self looped Generator Claim
« Reply #145 on: August 28, 2013, 09:57:34 PM »
Has anyone actually built an Hendershot generator yet, , if so what about the youtube link the 2 hour demo does it actually work, if so, i live in the UK and need to find somewhere  where they sell the unpolarised capacitor 500 micro farads ? Thank you x