I apologise for the rather sarcastic post I put here yesterday. It was rather shocking to see how nasty I'm getting. Hopefully this will be more to the point.
I have attached the links to those papers that Poynty's made available. Not sure how long he's likely to leave it there. So, for those of you who have not been able to read this off the the blog posting - this should help.
I've got lots to update you on - but am a bit pressed for time. I'll give it another go later on this evening.
By the way - here's a BLUNT rather than sarcastic update on our position regarding that challenge to Poynty Point
It seems that Poynty Point is refuting our claim based on the pretext of his own analysis of this. Kindly note. He has NEVER replicated our experiment. His earlier work on this was confined to a simulation of the waveform where he showed equivalent results. He then - rather lamely - argued against those very results by stating that our probes should be reversed to get a true value. This is INCORRECT and flies in the face of the established protocols for the measure of electric energy.
My argument is that he should evaluate our claim in the context of standard measurement protocols. That, after all, has been a science that has been very precisely defined by very prestigious scientists EVERYWHERE. You cannot simply recommend the reversal of the probes and then seriously expect to extrapolate either the correct data or the correct analysis applied to that data. And those terms of his. PIN AND POUT. They are essentially FLAWED. Our entire argument is based on the evidence that the energy on our circuit is from what he calls POUT. Which, clearly is PIN - if, indeed, our claim is valid. The claim itself - is DENIED by those rather exotic definitions of his, that he's tried to impose on everyone here. I assure you that there are no academic electrical engineers who would adopt those 'quixotic' terminologies. And the pity of it is that the contributing members here seem to unaware of this fact.
But the truth is hidden even deeper than this facile rejection of the evidence. The most of the forum members have no idea that they're being led by the nose. Nor do they know that this unity barrier that is now comprehensively BROKEN has - in fact - been comprehensively broken ALL OVER THE PLACE. We do NOT have a monopoly on it. Where we DO have considerable authority is that we took the trouble to write this down in a format that is required by any reviewed journal. And those measurements are impeccable - as they're made by top of the range equipment. They cannot, therefore, be discounted on the basis of an inherent flaw in the extrapolation of that data.
And proof of this agenda is right here in this - our challenge to Poynty. IF indeed, he refuses to evaluate our evidence - then I'm afraid he would need to justify his reasons for this. And that would require him to DETAIL THOSE MEASUREMENTS THAT HE CLAIMS ARE ERRONEOUS. If he does not engage - it is because he DARE NOT. Right now he is trying to dismiss the claims based on his OWN replication. That's irrelevant. His tests are not OUR CLAIM. We take the test to levels where we can boil water. Indeed, we can even exceed that much energy - but for very short periods as the transistors COOK. And all this with the measurement of current flows that absolutely DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE ENERGIES. A simulation program will never show this.
In order to justify his rather RUDE dismissal - he also goes to some considerable pains to assure you all that - I am FANTASIZING. IF, I am, IF all this is the product of my imagination - IF it's some kind of reckless claim based on an improbable DREAM - then in my defense. I share that dream - that fantasy - with six qualified electrical engineers and over 100 engineers of varying skills who have either seen or replicated this - and, indeed, with our LeCroy and Tektronix oscilloscopes that keep on keeping on showing precisely these results. We are all suffering from the very same delusion.
I put it to you that Poynty relies on the wide dismissal of the very foundation to our claim - precisely because he CANNOT REFUTE THE CLAIM. And he will beg off any TRUE evaluation of this because if he did - then he would have to acknowledge over unity. Which is something that he will NEVER do. And he also, therefore needs to assure all and sundry that I am variously MAD - or delusional - ignorant - and unschooled. I don't care to comment. But he would also then have to assure you that so is everyone else associated with this paper. He has also tried to recommend that the paper is TO BE ENJOYED FOR ITS COMIC VALUE. Again I cannot comment. But in due course, and with their permission, I will schedule the names of those academics from international and famous academies - who have commended that paper on the basis of its clarity and who have, to a man, recommended publication. It's a short list, thus far - barely a handful. But that list is growing.
And here's a link that that site
click here to get to our thread - if you're that interested. lol