Dear Reader,
I've had an uncharacterically critical email from one of my readers here. I'm advised that there's no 'substance' in my blog and I suspect he's right. I've been holding back on the information mainly to ensure that the news is fresh for our demonstration - and to ensure that those insufferable trolls don't get an early handle on this that they can then blast the information to bits with their irrelevancies and their poorly considered pseudo scientific pontifications. I am continually amazed to read - even today - that there is still any serious attempt to evaluate the energy dissipated on a switching circuit in terms of any voltage measurement across those loads - regardless. I know that Harvey attempted this analysis - very ill advisedly on EF.com. And he used the most extraordinary averaging that I've ever come across. And to compound the farce he has now been appointed as a moderator for LT's results and is giving all and sundry the option of applying any standard that they require. I am glad that I've been spared that confusion but am hugely amused that Poynty apparently considers an average as 'correct' where Lawrence apparently doesn't. My own opinion - for what it's worth - is that both points are spurious. But it seems that I am outnumbered. God forbid that science ever becomes determined by concensus opinion. Then we'd really be dead in the water. And while this debate rages, Grumpy still looks to enable the electrons on the surface of materials and others support him and so it goes. The relief is that Humbugger appears to have gone to sleep. I trust he'll hibernate for the rest of the season. He's certainly earned his rest. I've had more fun on this forum than any other. And one does not need to participate to get that enjoyment. It's interesting reading and I strongly recommend you dip in there.
Now. To get back on topic. I've been distracted by an entirely new waveform. I won't here go into how to find this - as I'm not that anxious to share the know how until it's officially been demonstrated. But what it does is deliver more energy than was ever supplied by the battery. The ratios are extraordinary. The mean average delivered by the battery is a negative 24 watts or thereby. NEVER does the average default to a positive mean average. And yet the resistor cooks - but at 50 degrees centigrade as opposed to our previous 100 degrees at the cost of 1.47 watts. I am having great difficulty in getting my mind around the former result here. It's defintely NOT an erroneous measurement as it's evident on both DSO's and they are more than able to cope with the frequencies associated with both. Both are relatively fast and both have that characteristic component where the resonance somehow overrides the predetermined duty cycle. What really intrigues me about this new waveform is that there is unquestionably an increase in battery voltage over a 3 hour run. But I am not able to run it for longer periods - yet. I'll try again over the weekend. Certainly very promising. I shall probably incorporate both waveforms in our demonstration and in the report being prepared that will precede that demo. It's all really interesting. I hope that this much information will serve to whet the appetite. And that this is the kind of substance that Acme was looking for. Not long now guys and gals.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
