author=MileHigh link=topic=16589.msg486597#msg486597 date=1466338366]

The most cynical part of that posting is that Poynt got off to a shaky start at one point in the discussion and part of it was because he got thrown off by what his sim was saying.  His bad sim was reinforcing his mistaken preliminary thoughts.  Within one or two days clarity came back to him and he retracted his incorrect statements.  Everybody following the thread was witness to this.
And here you are like a clown repeating some of his incorrect statements that he already retracted as part of a setup for your posting where you show conflicting viewpoints being expressed by some people.

Exactly what i thought you would say--you hypocrite.
How many threads,over how many months,have we listen to you harp on about how EMJ and wattsup could not answer the very question this thread is about-->how many Mr hypocrite?.

Do you understand how doing that is beyond ridiculous on your part?  It's just shameless unethical and incorrect behaviour.

Do you now understand how the rest of us has had to endure the very same thing from you over the past 10 months.?

Beyond that, what you should do is do a followup posting where you demonstrate all of your new knowledge and resolve all of the apparent conflicts and explain the rationale for each resolution.

Sure--right after some one here can back up the claimed correct answer with a circuit that accurately follows the description of the circuit in the question--the scientific method.

  Enough work has been put into this thread by many people.  A countless number of your misunderstandings, mistakes, or obstinate refusals to budge from wrong positions have been argued out in a sincere effort to bring this question to a successful conclusion.

The question will be bought to a successful conclusion right after the above stated is carried out. No question is answered correctly based around assumptions--that is not the scientific method you harp on about all the time here.

So that's my suggestion to you:  Do a bit of shining and list the apparent conflicts and disagreements on the technical points one by one and and then resolve each one with the correct answer with a full explanation for each answer where you demonstrate competency in the subject matter.

My suggestion to you is-->do some shining of your own,and back up your claimed answer with solid proof,base around a circuit that accurately represents the circuit in your question.
Anything short of that will not be accepted as a correct answer.
You bought the !ideal! into this,so now you must back it up.


Brad

I know you can do much better than that Brad.

I put time and effort into that post, which clearly illustrates what happens. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that particular post and why you still believe the results shown are incorrect.

Even from a layman's point of view (and I'm not implying you are a layman), I would think the scope shot makes perfect sense.

For example, do you not agree that the calculated power from t=3 to t=6 ramps from +9.56W to 0W? We know there is 2.39A of current flowing, and now that the voltage has reversed, it is actually in-phase with the current, so the power goes positive, i.e. +2.39 x -(-4) = +9.56W.

Green=Voltage Source Voltage
Red=Circuit Current
Purple=Voltage Source Power

Because there is(for example).000000000000000001% difference between unity and overunity.
One is possible,and the other is not-apparently
The difference between the two is enormous.
The difference between 0 resistance(no resistance)and .000000000000001ohm is also just as enormous,as the difference between 20 000 000 000 watts of power,is no where near an infinite amount of power.

Your sim needs some sort of resistance to even start to compute the numbers--it will not compute the question as asked--we have seen this already.
Near enough is not good enough to claim OU,and so near enough is not good enough to answer a given question. Your sim shows power being dissipated,and that is not what would happen with the device defined in the question.
Can the circuit described in the question be built to verify the claimed answer?
How do you know for sure that there is not some huge change when resistance is removed altogether,like the removal of that .00000000000001 ohm resistance has on power calculations?.

Why dose a voltage appear across an inductor(coil) before current starts to flow?--and i dont mean just throw in inductive reactance,or some simple term like that.I mean--what is the mechanism taking place that delays the current flow?.

All to often,we just get as close as we can,and that then becomes good enough--but this is not the scientific method we have all been taught to stick to.
Near enough has not yet been good enough to get the TPU up and running


Brad

I am challenging you that what you say above does not make a single stitch of logical sense.  Why do you allege that I am a hypocrite, and explain your reasoning.  Go ahead and explain how what you say makes any sense, if you can.

Simple
You harp on about how some of us have to keep reminding you about your blunder in regards to resonance having nothing what so ever to do with the ICE,but at the same time,you harp on about EMJ and wattsup not being able to answer your 'ideal' question.
This means you are complaining about something that is being done to you,when you do the very same thing to others=hypocrite.

Now-you and Poynt seem to be at odds regarding voltage across an ideal coil while a steady current flows through it-->something that is relevant to the  question,and also your ideal voltage source being able to contain energy--this is also vital to Poynts last explanation. If you are correct,and the ideal voltage source dose not contain energy,then Poynts last explanation is incorrect.
If you are wrong,then Poynts explanation could make sense--but you'd have to be wrong,and we all know how much you would hate that-->MH dosnt quite know what an ideal voltage source is.

I do expect some form of spagetti explanation to be presented about this indiscretion 

For starters you have exaggerated how many times I mentioned the question with regards to Wattsup and EMJunkie.  I also used it as an illustration about the abysmal state of electronics knowledge among some electronics experimenters even though they have had many years of experience on the bench.  More so when it comes to EMJunkie because he positions himself as someone that "teaches" other people about coils.  EMJunkie even had the nerve to try to deny it about a month or two ago which was outrageous.

And for the 80th time, I owned up to being wrong about a Helmholtz resonator being used on the input for a two-stroke engine because of my ignorance.  So I learned something new.  And of course we can't forget that your communication skills are so weak that you didn't even qualify your statement about ICE's and resonance.  I was thinking about a typical modern car engine when I made my statement, and in that sense I was not really wrong.  It's only when we lower the bar and bend over ass-backwards and accept your limitations and realize that you were actually talking about a two-stroke performance engine does resonance become relevant.  But the most important thing of all, is that I owned up to my mistake.

If you were normal you would have accepted my owning up to my mistake and just moved on and not have mentioned it again.  But no, since you have very little to go after me with you have repeated the same thing over and over.  And the fact that I owned up to it and you still keep repeating it makes you a dumbass that has nothing new to say.

Going back to what started this exchange, you make a totally dumbass posting where you knowingly and intentionally quote Poynt out of context.  You haven't retracted your statements.

What I said about EMJunkie and Wattsup was a true statement.  And when you posted Poynt's stuff you were knowingly and willfully making false statements.  You owe Point an apology for your dumbass behaviour.

Yes, I used the story about EMJunkie and Wattsup for illustrative purposes.  My statements were true, and it doesn't make me a hypocrite to complain about your repeated restatements about a mistake I owned up to.

MileHigh

As i though-you avoided most of everything that post was about--as you do.
I owe Poynt nothing except thanks for the help he has given me--but that dose not mean i am going to agree with everything he says outright.

The statements i quoted are correct and not in anyway false.

Poynt says that a voltage exists across a coil(even an ideal coil) when there is a current(be it varying of stable)flowing through that coil.
You say that no voltage can be measured across an ideal coil that has a steady DC current flowing through it--and before you get your knickers in a twist,i would say that i have to agree with you,unless i have misunderstood what Poynt was saying.

Second-you clearly stated that an ideal voltage source dose not contain energy,and Poynt clearly stated that energy is returned back to the source--Quote post 1136-The energy stored in the inductor is returned to the voltage source.
So do not lie and say i knowingly and willfully making false statements,as what i said is absolutely correct and true--your lying is becoming way to obvious MH.

So ,as i !correctly! stated--one of you is wrong.
If you are correct,then Poynt needs to find some where else for that energy to be returned to,and there is no where else.
So for Poynt to be correct--you have to be wrong about your ideal voltage source.


Brad.

Dear MileHigh.

Many thanks for your interesting interpretation of the links I shared. The story goes that the Petter Super scavenge engine came about by accident. Upon load testing one day the engineers saw a marked reduction in fuel consumption for the load applied, during their investigation they found that someone had forgotten to replace the crankcase doors after a spot of maintenance. Being a Two stroke design using crankcase compression/transfer obviously something else was recharging the cylinder...... The exhaust !! 

I'm having to copy and paste as my browser keeps coming back with " page unavailable. "

You wrote. " That's in contrast to a pipe organ or a whistle, where the tube is acting like a resonator and kinetic and potential energy is resonating back and forth in a standing sound wave inside the tube. "

If I have read you correctly? You're saying that an organ pipe is a " True " resonator ?

My question is, what's the difference?

In an organ pipe we have air under pressure passing the " flue " that creates a series of pressure waves to make a sound of a given frequency.
The same thing is happening in an exhaust pipe, the only difference is in the way the pulses are generated.

From my point of view I see the same picture. I realise that my posts are irritating to some so this will be my last on this subject, I will, however look forward to reading your reply.

Kind regards, Grum.

Dear MileHigh.

Many thanks for your interesting interpretation of the links I shared. The story goes that the Petter Super scavenge engine came about by accident. Upon load testing one day the engineers saw a marked reduction in fuel consumption for the load applied, during their investigation they found that someone had forgotten to replace the crankcase doors after a spot of maintenance. Being a Two stroke design using crankcase compression/transfer obviously something else was recharging the cylinder...... The exhaust !! 

I'm having to copy and paste as my browser keeps coming back with " page unavailable. "

You wrote. " That's in contrast to a pipe organ or a whistle, where the tube is acting like a resonator and kinetic and potential energy is resonating back and forth in a standing sound wave inside the tube. "

If I have read you correctly? You're saying that an organ pipe is a " True " resonator ?

My question is, what's the difference?

In an organ pipe we have air under pressure passing the " flue " that creates a series of pressure waves to make a sound of a given frequency.
The same thing is happening in an exhaust pipe, the only difference is in the way the pulses are generated.

From my point of view I see the same picture. I realise that my posts are irritating to some so this will be my last on this subject, I will, however look forward to reading your reply.

Kind regards, Grum.

Not at all Grum.
It will be irritating to only one,as it is not inline with his limited beliefs and parameters.


Brad

A good friend of mine made this video and it is so so apt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrvRAjq3h1g

Regards

Mike

PS. I do not make many videos public, only private, and I put in years of bench time, just in case a comment is made.

Sure Mike, let's deal with this one right away and put this puppy to bed.

Here is what I said to the commenters on that clip:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hello, this is User2718218 and I am forced to post this on your clip to defend myself against the allegations that I am a troll made by Robert Murray Smith on his clip, "On User2718218 A Troll And What To Do About Him" because he banned my comments.  His allegations are NOT TRUE and I will explain why using some postings of mine in defense of myself that Robert Murray Smith banned you from seeing.

I engaged with Robert because he made extravagant claims about his supercapacitors without offering up any credible measurements at all. I have a technical background and I was smelling something that wasn't right. Robert has consistently refused to comment on any of my legitimate technical questions or justifiable criticisms and instead he tried to impugn my character by insulting me. This clip is more about Robert than it is about me. To see an unfiltered debate between myself and Robert where the truth comes out, please go to Lasersaber's channel and look at the comments on the "Homemade Graphene Supercapacitors - First Tests " clip.  Most of his comments on the Lasersaber clip have been removed, so it looks mostly like a one-way conversation.  Presumably all the comments where he insults me like a troll and attacks my character have been removed.

The Lasersaber clip with my debate with Robert Murray Smith:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5cOebnCvXo

Part 2 of my defense of my character and the false allegations of Robert Murray Smith:

It is perfectly legitimate to observe someone's technical presentation and comment on it without replicating it.  That's how real science works, it's called peer review.  I don't have to replicate anything when Robert makes a clip where he is supposedly measuring the energy output of one of his devices over time.  In the clip he measures the current output but does NOT measure the corresponding voltage and he does NOT factor in the fact that the voltage is continuously dropping because he simply isn't measuring it.  That is a purely nonsensical unscientific measurement that is totally meaningless data, and yet he expresses pride in a nonsensical measurement that would make him the laughing stock in any grade ten physics class.  I am being absolutely serious about this, his "measurement" is pure junk.  It is that bad and I felt compelled to speak up and engage with him because of this outrageous nonscientific behaviour that he was doing.  All that he could do was insult me and he has never responded once to any of my 100% legitimate technical comments and criticisms.  Please go to the Lasersaber clip for more information.

What is one of my primary interests on YouTube?  What I really like to do is comment on fraudulent scammers that try to sell fake free energy devices.  I do this purely out of altruism towards my fellow man, and I have helped in busting professional free energy scammers over the years.  There are too many people being taken advantage of when it comes to this stuff and I try to stop it.

Robert Murray Smith is not a free energy scammer.  I looked at his clips because I was and still am enthusiastic about the advances in technology when it comes to supercapacitors.  However, to my shock, I saw shoddy practices and totally useless and illegitimate "measurements" that are simply lies.  And I saw unsubstantiated outrageous claims with no measurements.  I felt compelled to engage with him about these serious measurement issues and the related issue of scientific credibility.  Robert has never once responded to my legitimate questions about his ridiculous measurements that make no technical sense and to my questions related to how grossly inaccurate his measurements where and how his conclusions about those grossly inaccurate questions were not credible.  Instead he insulted me and attacked my character like a troll himself.

I am here to do GOOD, I am not a troll.  That is the honest truth.  I challenged Robert Murray Smith because he needed and deserved to be challenged.

The fundamental issue is this:  Robert Murray Smith made false and misleading measurements and associated claims about his supercapacitors.  One of his measurements is actually an invalid and technically incorrect measurement that makes no logical sense, it is a complete failure.  I challenged him about these serious serious issues and he refused to respond to the technical issues and he also insulted me and criticized my character,  A typical response from him to my serious technical question was "You are an idiot."  He said that because he has no technical argument to argue that he was correct, because he was incorrect.

In life we have to have principles that we must live by, we can't be morally apathetic.  Sometimes when you see something that is wrong, you are just and good in saying that it is wrong.

I am no troll, I assure you, and I do not need to replicate his experiments.  The experiments themselves are not the issue.  The issue is the false and misleading and incorrect measurements made by Robert Murray Smith.

False and misleading measurements lead to false and misleading claims.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I come out smelling like roses and RMS stinks to high heaven.

MileHigh