This is for you Poynty.
That argument on power analysis is hopelessly flawed. What are you thinking? I wouldn't write here except that I'm rather shocked at the liberal applause that you seem to have generated from your 'followers'.
If we put a power meter in series with a plug and then light a light - then that power meter will register a wattage. Our utility suppliers depend on this.
If we look at the voltage through that wire in series with that light - using your average DSO we will see a perfectly sinusoidal waveform. The power trace is developed from that voltage. You claim that the net power dissipated is zero based on the sum of both traces above and below zero. But. If I was to agree with your argument then I'd be left with the evidence of power dissipated that refutes your argument. I'd see it in the lit light - and I'd read it on the watt meter.
Poor Lawrence simply agrees because his FLEET is widely seen as usurping the technology progressed by others. Therefore is his tenure on other forums denied. You allow it? Why? Because you intend refuting his evidence and thereby all the evidence of the Joule Thief researchers?
If you refute it on the argument that you've presented it's wrong. You'll need to find another argument Poynty Point. The power dissipated is based on the voltage from a preceding sinusoidal voltage trace. The power delivered is greater than zero. Therefore too is the power dissiapted greater than zero. Power is NEVER based on the sum of any voltage at all. It's the product - however you wish to factor that product. However - there's no simple factor in the application of RMS on a simple switching circuit. I wonder how often I'll need to say this? It reminds me of the time when I had to repeatedly point out that back electromotive force could, indeed, recharge a battery. Do you remember that argument Poynty?
What are you thinking?
Rosie
btw - it seems that there are three schools of thought - not two. The third school borrows any fallacious argument it wants to deny any evidence it chooses. That school is definitely going to win every argument - provided only that they're ever given any kind of credibility at all. If this is an example of that argument then neither of the other two schools need worry too much.
Monday, February 7, 2011
47 - on marriage counselling and repairing the rift
Dear Reader,
It doesn't often happen that we're presented with evidence that precisely and completely contradicts known physics. And certainly it is not expected in the field of electromagnetics. The fact is that - of all scientific disciplines - it's our electrical engineers who have, unquestionably, made the greatest progress. They have been largely, very largely, responsible for launching us into this new technological era and it's explorations on both the small and large scale. Their applications are, indeed, well used and well applied. Everywhere. And everywhere it's based on the knowledge of electricity.
At the foundation to this knowledge is the concept of the electron as the 'charge carrier' and with the flow of electrons as the basic property of electric current. Also well known and well understood are switching circuits and their myriad applications. So. To use a simple switching circuit to defy known electromagnetic technology? It's a double whammy. Typically I see reactions of outraged denial. And then - possibly understandably - a complete rejection of the proposal and, needless the say - the rejection of the proposer of that proposal.
There are two schools of thought. The one determines that the conservation of energy outlaws any possible breach of those Laws of Thermodynamics. And since electromagnetic forces are incorporated into the 2nd Law - then the delivery of this energy can never exceed 1. In other words - you can't get more work out of a circuit than the amount of energy first applied. Mainstream science and scientists belong to this school. It carries a global concensus. Then there's the second school. Not such a big following. In fact, here a small eccentric group defy any constraints to the potential in electromagnetic energy and justify this variously in terms of photonic energy - or radiant energy - or both. Their thinking is rather confusing. And their outrageous claims are considered to be somewhat eccentric and rather naively optimistic. What is not so fully appreciated is that both schools rely on muddled thinking - the former less so than the latter. And what has not been clearly evidenced, yet, is that our 'free energy thinkers' have not managed to prove their claims to our 'not so free thinkers'. In other words the 'nays' still have the edge based on the evidence or lack of it.
But both schools enjoy a kind of license in their foundational conceptual constructs that has everything to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In effect what this says, in a rather circuitous way, is this. 'If it works - then use it'. And this - indeed - was the basic justification of quantum theories which have, unquestionably, forged our progress in all technology at a compounded and accelerating pace. Which, in the final arguement is 'not so bad at all'. Far from it. Mainstream progress of matters scientific has, quite simply been awesome.
The role I've played here is as an outsider. I am seriously hampered by a very literal turn of mind. When I read of a Law, then I assume it is meant to be universally applied, like our Inductive Laws. When I read of the energy trapped in matter, then I assume that energy is literally available in that matter. Which also means that when I read or see contradictions to these laws and then learn of restrictions superimposed on their applications - then I'm floored.
As I see it when we follow an argument in the abstract, we develop a kind of mental model to support that argument. Not unlike the concept of electrons flowing in a shared parth - which is the widely applied concept of current flow. That's more or less what I do. But because of the rather stringent requirements of this literal turn of mind with which I'm afflicted - then I need to develop those concepts that fit the whole picture. I don't live that easy with those contradictions that both our mainstream scientists and our free energy thinkers manage. And this also means that I subscribe to the ideals of both schools of thought and yet I belong to neither. And yet. I think I may possibly have found the 'link' that marries both schools. Which may yet prove to be a good thing. Indeed, thus far I seem to have managed little more than alienate both schools, as can be seen by my rather confrontational history on representative forums from both sides of this argument. I have not been sheltered because I do not subcribe to either philosophy. And nor can I. I have my own argument. And I'm not sure that I need to win a popularity contest. The issue is way too important.
Which brings me back to the point. It is one thing to disprove a known principle. But it is an entirely different matter to prove it easily and with the simplest of simplest circuits that is absolutely well known and well used and well measured and EVERYWHERE applied. It may have helped the cause, generally, if it were something more hidden - where the evidence was more ponderous, the rendition of the evidence more learned, more obtuse, more befuddled. It would have helped if I'd been schooled in traditional science, and learned the tactful subtle art of counterproposal and tedious debate. But I didn't. Nor could I. And that speaks to my lack of formal training.
But there is one thing that I do know. Evidence, experimental evidence, is way more articulate than any argument. And that evidence is there - repeatedly. Therefore, when we finally can show that evidence then, hopefully, these facts can be seen as a marriage of these two disparate schools. And maybe then I'll be seen as a marriage broker rather than as an unschooled dissident. It would be nice to be considered in a more constructive role - in any event. I'm tired of being considered confrontational - when all I'm actually trying to do is to confront the weakness in two arguments and thereby make them both stronger. I'm tired of being considered the antagonist. I'm really, at heart, a kind of marriage counsellor. But I've never really learned the art of tact. And I may be a little too old to learn anything more at all. I hope not.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
It doesn't often happen that we're presented with evidence that precisely and completely contradicts known physics. And certainly it is not expected in the field of electromagnetics. The fact is that - of all scientific disciplines - it's our electrical engineers who have, unquestionably, made the greatest progress. They have been largely, very largely, responsible for launching us into this new technological era and it's explorations on both the small and large scale. Their applications are, indeed, well used and well applied. Everywhere. And everywhere it's based on the knowledge of electricity.
At the foundation to this knowledge is the concept of the electron as the 'charge carrier' and with the flow of electrons as the basic property of electric current. Also well known and well understood are switching circuits and their myriad applications. So. To use a simple switching circuit to defy known electromagnetic technology? It's a double whammy. Typically I see reactions of outraged denial. And then - possibly understandably - a complete rejection of the proposal and, needless the say - the rejection of the proposer of that proposal.
There are two schools of thought. The one determines that the conservation of energy outlaws any possible breach of those Laws of Thermodynamics. And since electromagnetic forces are incorporated into the 2nd Law - then the delivery of this energy can never exceed 1. In other words - you can't get more work out of a circuit than the amount of energy first applied. Mainstream science and scientists belong to this school. It carries a global concensus. Then there's the second school. Not such a big following. In fact, here a small eccentric group defy any constraints to the potential in electromagnetic energy and justify this variously in terms of photonic energy - or radiant energy - or both. Their thinking is rather confusing. And their outrageous claims are considered to be somewhat eccentric and rather naively optimistic. What is not so fully appreciated is that both schools rely on muddled thinking - the former less so than the latter. And what has not been clearly evidenced, yet, is that our 'free energy thinkers' have not managed to prove their claims to our 'not so free thinkers'. In other words the 'nays' still have the edge based on the evidence or lack of it.
But both schools enjoy a kind of license in their foundational conceptual constructs that has everything to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In effect what this says, in a rather circuitous way, is this. 'If it works - then use it'. And this - indeed - was the basic justification of quantum theories which have, unquestionably, forged our progress in all technology at a compounded and accelerating pace. Which, in the final arguement is 'not so bad at all'. Far from it. Mainstream progress of matters scientific has, quite simply been awesome.
The role I've played here is as an outsider. I am seriously hampered by a very literal turn of mind. When I read of a Law, then I assume it is meant to be universally applied, like our Inductive Laws. When I read of the energy trapped in matter, then I assume that energy is literally available in that matter. Which also means that when I read or see contradictions to these laws and then learn of restrictions superimposed on their applications - then I'm floored.
As I see it when we follow an argument in the abstract, we develop a kind of mental model to support that argument. Not unlike the concept of electrons flowing in a shared parth - which is the widely applied concept of current flow. That's more or less what I do. But because of the rather stringent requirements of this literal turn of mind with which I'm afflicted - then I need to develop those concepts that fit the whole picture. I don't live that easy with those contradictions that both our mainstream scientists and our free energy thinkers manage. And this also means that I subscribe to the ideals of both schools of thought and yet I belong to neither. And yet. I think I may possibly have found the 'link' that marries both schools. Which may yet prove to be a good thing. Indeed, thus far I seem to have managed little more than alienate both schools, as can be seen by my rather confrontational history on representative forums from both sides of this argument. I have not been sheltered because I do not subcribe to either philosophy. And nor can I. I have my own argument. And I'm not sure that I need to win a popularity contest. The issue is way too important.
Which brings me back to the point. It is one thing to disprove a known principle. But it is an entirely different matter to prove it easily and with the simplest of simplest circuits that is absolutely well known and well used and well measured and EVERYWHERE applied. It may have helped the cause, generally, if it were something more hidden - where the evidence was more ponderous, the rendition of the evidence more learned, more obtuse, more befuddled. It would have helped if I'd been schooled in traditional science, and learned the tactful subtle art of counterproposal and tedious debate. But I didn't. Nor could I. And that speaks to my lack of formal training.
But there is one thing that I do know. Evidence, experimental evidence, is way more articulate than any argument. And that evidence is there - repeatedly. Therefore, when we finally can show that evidence then, hopefully, these facts can be seen as a marriage of these two disparate schools. And maybe then I'll be seen as a marriage broker rather than as an unschooled dissident. It would be nice to be considered in a more constructive role - in any event. I'm tired of being considered confrontational - when all I'm actually trying to do is to confront the weakness in two arguments and thereby make them both stronger. I'm tired of being considered the antagonist. I'm really, at heart, a kind of marriage counsellor. But I've never really learned the art of tact. And I may be a little too old to learn anything more at all. I hope not.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)