Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > Joule Thief Circuits > Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?

2024-05-27, 01:54:29
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22

« previous next »

Author Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? (Read 330978 times)

ltseung888	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #475 on: 2011-02-02, 03:43:29 »
Group: Guest	Bringing-up a good point In Physics, we sometimes fall into the trap. Someone made a logical and sensible explanation on an observation. If that someone has reputation and authority, many others will accept and follow. Few will actively seek alternative explanations. This is why physicists failed to answer the simple question for so long. The simple question is – when a tuning fork is struck in the presence of other identical tuning forks, the resulting sound will be louder and lasts longer. Some authorities wrote in textbooks that it is sympathetic vibrations and is a characteristic of resonance. Physicists followed that doctrine for centuries. If they had raised the question – does that represent more energy with the louder and longer sound? If so, where does that extra energy come from? They would not need to wait until Dec 2004 for an old, retired guy with two previous strokes to come up with the Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory. In this forum, please do not blindly accept ANY logical and sensible explanation as final. Pseudo resonance behavior is NOT normal. Amen. *** I am glad that Poynt99 has softened his words. He is allowing room for other alternative explanations.

Harvey	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #476 on: 2011-02-02, 07:34:51 »
Group: Guest	Hi All, Before an actual debate thread is started regarding measurement methods it may be good to review certain terms to lay the ground work for mutual understanding. Q. What does 'mean' mean when used on a scope? A. It is the Arithmetical Mean of the selected train or cycle. This is often referred to as the Average Q. What is the Formula for Average Power (Mean Power) in an AC waveform? A. (Also See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#Power_calculations ) Q. Is there a formula for calculating the RMS value of a sawtooth wave like those shown in some of the screen shots here? A. Yes, if the period and amplitude are consistent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#RMS_of_common_waveforms Q. Is there any solid way to compare power between two stages of a circuit when the waveforms are wildly diverse in amplitude, frequency and envelope? A. Yes. Certain scopes offer an AREA selection that will return Volt-Seconds of a particular wave form. When applied to the power traces for the two stages an easy comparison can be made that very accurately provides the ratio between the two stages. For an example see page 162 in this manual http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Tektronix/DPO3000_UM.pdf Q. Can the ground system of two different scopes inject energy into a DUT? A. Yes. Consider a situation where two scopes are plugged into different receptacles only a few feet apart. The ground wire for each is routed next to the other two current carrying wires in the wall for those few feet. Current flowing in those other wires will induce current in the ground wire along that path. Now consider that one of the scopes is connected to the input stage at the battery ground and the other is connected to the output stage (isolated by the toroid). We now have created a short circuit between the reference lead at battery negative and the reference lead at the output winding and we are pumping energy into that wire which in turn will drive the output transformer from the output side and store energy in its core. So it is important that short circuits of this sort are allowed for the DUT and that any grounds for connected test equipment are secured as close to each other as possible. I think it is great to have so many persons assembled in one place to share their knowledge and experience. Unfortunately I cannot claim that all of my knowledge is accurate and correct, so it is practically guaranteed that I will make mistakes and errors. So when you see them, please feel free to correct them Cheers! Harvey

ltseung888	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #477 on: 2011-02-02, 15:55:20 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Harvey on 2011-02-02, 07:34:51 Hi All, Before an actual debate thread is started regarding measurement methods it may be good to review certain terms to lay the ground work for mutual understanding. …… I think it is great to have so many persons assembled in one place to share their knowledge and experience. Unfortunately I cannot claim that all of my knowledge is accurate and correct, so it is practically guaranteed that I will make mistakes and errors. So when you see them, please feel free to correct them Cheers! Harvey @Harvey, welcome to the forum. None of us can claim that our knowledge is absolutely accurate and correct. However, some of us carry more conviction than others. Sometimes, very strong words are used. Or sometimes, someone’s hard word was dismissed as experimental error. With your presence as a moderator, we shall see a higher level of scientific reasoning. I prefer to wait for poynt99 to receive the components package. He can then build a FLEET and examine the waveforms for himself. Preferably, he can display them in this forum for all to share and examine. Our debate will be much more meaningful with actual “pseudo resonance” waveforms. Such waveforms have not been adequately explained in standard textbooks. (In particular, why do the Output Power Waveforms cover much larger areas than the Input Power Waveforms. Does that mean COP > 1?) Meanwhile, you can see my points of view at my moderated bench: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=610.0 Best regards, Lawrence Tseung Director, Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #478 on: 2011-02-02, 19:16:39 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Lawrence, Harvey, May I suggest that we first establish precisely what the issue of the debate is? I see indications that everyone has their own differing ideas about this, even though I feel I have adequately conveyed what the issue is, and there have been no objections to date. First we have to agree on what the debate issue is, and it should be limited as much as possible in terms of breadth of scope. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Harvey	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #479 on: 2011-02-02, 20:06:18 »
Group: Guest	As an outside observer coming to the discussion fresh with the advantage of seeing all of the preceding posts as a collective whole, it appears to me that the debate relates to which of the following two power measurement techniques should be used. Method 1: Average Power obtained from the product of RMS current and RMS voltage Method 2: Average Power obtained from the Mean of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage. If this is not the issue under debate, please correct me. Harvey

MileHigh	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #480 on: 2011-02-02, 20:46:11 »
Group: Guest	I am just going to do a quick brute force exploration into the power issues related to the fact that you have a non-linear load, a diode. Supposing you have a situation where the output is 1 volt at 1 amp for one second, and then 2 volts at 10 amps for another second. This is a non-linear load like a diode. The instantaneous power for the first second is 1 watt, and for the second second it is 20 watts. So the average power is (1 joule + 20 joules)/2 seconds = 10.5 watts. (CORRECT) The mean voltage is (1 + 2)/2 = 1.5 volts. The mean current is (1 + 10)/2 = 5.5 amps. The mean voltage times the mean current is (1.5 x 5.5) = 8.25 watts (INCORRECT) The RMS voltage is sqrt (1 + 4) = 2.236 volts The RMS current is sqrt (1 + 100) = 10.050 amps The RMS voltage times the RMS current is (2.236 x 10.050) = 22.5 watts (INCORRECT) So the conclusion is that you cannot use the mean voltage times the mean current or the RMS voltage times the RMS current for any kind of a non-linear load like you have in the LTJT where L3 drives a load that consists of a diode and two resistors. You have to multiply the instantaneous voltage by the instantaneous current and then take the average of the power waveform. Therefore the correct way of measuring the output power from the LTJT is for Poynt to use his DSO and measure the instantaneous voltage and current values and then do the associated calculations. The same principle applies to measuring the input power because the LTJT itself is a non-linear load. MileHigh

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #481 on: 2011-02-02, 21:40:05 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: Harvey on 2011-02-02, 20:06:18 As an outside observer coming to the discussion fresh with the advantage of seeing all of the preceding posts as a collective whole, it appears to me that the debate relates to which of the following two power measurement techniques should be used. Method 1: Average Power obtained from the product of RMS current and RMS voltage Method 2: Average Power obtained from the Mean of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage. If this is not the issue under debate, please correct me. Harvey Harvey, I believe the issue at hand is even more basic. My understanding of the disagreement is simply regarding which computation should be used to obtain the REAL power in the circuit, either: Method 1: The Power value obtained from the MEAN* of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage. or Method 2: The Power value obtained from the RMS of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage. If Lawrence disagrees that this is what the debate is about, then I would ask him to describe what the disagreement is from his perspective. Thanks, .99 * I can reference a number of posts that seem to support the notion that this is indeed the disagreement between us. --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

ltseung888	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #482 on: 2011-02-02, 23:48:27 »
Group: Guest	Let me word the topic of the debate as I understand it 1. We have one or two oscilloscopes. We would like to measure the correct Input Power (or Input Energy) and compare that with the correct Output Power (or Output Energy), is there a theoretically best method? 2. The waveforms for voltage and current can have any arbitrary shape. The waveforms may not even be periodic. (The waveform never repeats itself.) 3. The waveforms may even be pulsing and may even be non-continuous. 4. The waveform can cut the neutral axis. This means that the voltage or the current may be positive or negative. 5. Since the waveforms are NOT sinusoidal, we cannot have the simple phase relationships between voltage and current. 6. Does the concept of Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current still hold? 7. To repeat - is there a theoretically correct method? Is the area integration method the best? 8. If we want an approximate comparison, should we use the mean or the rms computation for the Instantaneous Power? Please reword the above if you feel that it does not accurately reflect the essence of our debate. Thank you.

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #483 on: 2011-02-03, 00:01:35 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-02-02, 23:48:27 Let me word the topic of the debate as I understand it 1. We have one or two oscilloscopes. We would like to measure the correct Input Power (or Input Energy) and compare that with the correct Output Power (or Output Energy), is there a theoretically best method? 2. The waveforms for voltage and current can have any arbitrary shape. The waveforms may not even be periodic. (The waveform never repeats itself.) 3. The waveforms may even be pulsing and may even be non-continuous. 4. The waveform can cut the neutral axis. This means that the voltage or the current may be positive or negative. 5. Since the waveforms are NOT sinusoidal, we cannot have the simple phase relationships between voltage and current. 6. Does the concept of Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current still hold? 7. To repeat - is there a theoretically correct method? Is the area integration method the best? 8. If we want an approximate comparison, should we use the mean or the rms computation for the Instantaneous Power? Please reword the above if you feel that it does not accurately reflect the essence of our debate. Thank you. Lawrence, In order to have a debate about an issue, each side partaking in the debate must have a different stance or position. In other words the two (or more) parties are not in agreement about a specific issue. In the above, you have not identified a specific issue, nor identified a position or stance that you are taking on that issue. What you have done is asked some questions, which seems to indicate that you are uncertain as to what the issue is and therefore you currently have no stance as a result. There can be no debate I'm afraid until you fulfill these two requirements. So Lawrence, please do the following if you are serious about having this debate: 1) Identify a specific issue. 2) Describe your stance on the issue that you have identified. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Harvey	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #484 on: 2011-02-03, 00:22:15 »
Group: Guest	Thank you both for the clarification. It would seem that Lawrence's Item 8 and Poynt99's preceding post are in agreement as to the basis of the debate even though they are worded slightly differently. Recognizing that Instantaneous Power P(t) is the product of Instantaneous Voltage V(t) and Instantaneous Current I(t) we have the formula P(t) = V(t) · I(t) We then have the basis of the debate: Which is the proper method of determining the Average Power for a series of P(t) samples where the load is purely resistive? Method 1: P_RMS = √((P₁² + P₂² + P₃² . . . P_n²)/ n) Method 2: P_MEAN = (P₁ + P₂ + P₃ . . . P_n) / n Does this sound correct to both participants in the debate?

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #485 on: 2011-02-03, 00:49:38 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: Harvey on 2011-02-03, 00:22:15 Thank you both for the clarification. It would seem that Lawrence's Item 8 and Poynt99's preceding post are in agreement as to the basis of the debate even though they are worded slightly differently. There are some very important differences. [I should mention, and I trust we are all in agreement on this, that all measurements being argued here are based on one that is obtained by first acquiring the instantaneous voltage and current wave forms, then multiplying them together to produce the instantaneous power trace. For circuits of this nature, there is no other sure method (using an oscilloscope) to obtain the value of average power in a circuit.] First, use of the word "approximate" in Item 8 is irrelevant and erroneous. This implies that even though the said computation may not be useful in order to obtain a correct value of power, it is acceptable to use for comparison purposes. This is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one. The said computation must produce either a correct or incorrect result, and only the correct result can and should be used for comparison purposes and absolute measurement alike. Why would one go through the trouble of obtaining an incorrect result when the correct result is at hand? Second, Lawrence seems to be asking whether we should be applying an RMS or a MEAN computation to the instantaneous power trace. This in fact is the fundamental question and disagreement at hand. But again, Lawrence is only asking questions. He must state an issue then take a stance on that issue, otherwise there is no debate, only questions. Quote We then have the basis of the debate: Which is the proper method of determining the Average Power for a series of P(t) samples where the load is purely resistive? There is no basis for a debate yet. There must be at least two differing points of view, and so far we only have one. The load is irrelevant. The P(t) method is applicable for all load types. We may be getting closer... .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Harvey	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #486 on: 2011-02-03, 01:09:50 »
Group: Guest	Do the participants wish to include in the debate the relevancy of load type in the Power computations?

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #487 on: 2011-02-03, 01:16:21 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: Harvey on 2011-02-03, 01:09:50 Do the participants wish to include in the debate the relevancy of load type in the Power computations? If you are implying that the load type is relevant, then I would ask you to explain why you believe this is so. Otherwise, my answer is no, because I have already stated that the load type is irrelevant. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

AllPhase	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #488 on: 2011-02-03, 01:36:30 »
Group: Guest	If Lawrence's Device has a Pure Carbon Resistor as a Load, the V & Current are IN PHASE, & a Power Dissipation Calculation is a Piece of Cake. Click on the Link below to verify this. This is really BASIC ELECTRONICS. WHY make it harder than it is? http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kU4BUpN6aQAFWBXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvAzAEZnIDeWZwLXQtMzQxBGhvc3RwdmlkAy5ZcDZoMG9HN3Y1UHVyekdUU2p3TGhHMlIuNS5oVTFLQlRnQURUcDgEbl9ncHMDMARuX3ZwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDcmVzaXN0b3IgbG9hZCAiaW4gcGhhc2UiIHJlYWN0aXZlBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDREZSNQ--?p=resistor+load+%22in+phase%22+reactive&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-341 .

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #489 on: 2011-02-03, 01:46:14 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: AllPhase on 2011-02-03, 01:36:30 If Lawrence's Device has a Pure Carbon Resistor as a Load, the V & Current are IN PHASE, & a Power Dissipation Calculation is a Piece of Cake. Click on the Link below to verify this. This is really BASIC ELECTRONICS. WHY make it harder than it is? http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kU4BUpN6aQAFWBXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvAzAEZnIDeWZwLXQtMzQxBGhvc3RwdmlkAy5ZcDZoMG9HN3Y1UHVyekdUU2p3TGhHMlIuNS5oVTFLQlRnQURUcDgEbl9ncHMDMARuX3ZwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDcmVzaXN0b3IgbG9hZCAiaW4gcGhhc2UiIHJlYWN0aXZlBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDREZSNQ--?p=resistor+load+%22in+phase%22+reactive&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-341 . It is not that simple in this case. Look at the circuit. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Harvey	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #490 on: 2011-02-03, 01:59:11 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-02-03, 01:16:21 If you are implying that the load type is relevant, then I would ask you to explain why you believe this is so. Otherwise, my answer is no, because I have already stated that the load type is irrelevant. .99 As the moderator I think I need to remain neutral. Therefore the question at hand is, do we wish to include the matter of load type relevancy in the debate or exclude it?

GibbsHelmholtz	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #491 on: 2011-02-03, 02:09:56 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Harvey on 2011-02-03, 00:22:15 Method 1: P_RMS = √((P₁² + P₂² + P₃² . . . P_n²)/ n) Method 2: P_MEAN = (P₁ + P₂ + P₃ . . . P_n) / n This issue is clarified earlier by poynt99 . Method 1 is not the correct way and I dont' think this is the issue between Lawrence and Poynt. Quote 1) Voltage: The scope is set to indicate the RMS value of the displayed wave form voltage measurement, and it displays 7.07VRMS 2) Current: The scope is set to indicate the RMS value of the displayed wave form current measurement, and it displays 141.4mARMS 3) Power: The scope is set to multiply in real time, the voltage and current wave forms to produce a third wave form trace showing us the instantaneous power. The scope is set to indicate the RMS value of the displayed wave form power computation, and it displays 1.22W 4) The scope is set to indicate the MEAN value of the displayed wave form power computation, and it displays 1.00W I think the issue here is that mr. Tseung thinking about I*V in general while Poynt99 thinks about REAL power. IV and real power is just a different in phase.

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #492 on: 2011-02-03, 02:27:58 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: Harvey on 2011-02-03, 01:59:11 As the moderator I think I need to remain neutral. Therefore the question at hand is, do we wish to include the matter of load type relevancy in the debate or exclude it? I think both Lawrence and I would appreciate knowing about any flaw in the premise. If something is relevant to the debate and it is not being addressed by either Lawrence or I, the moderator should make that known. I think it is safe to say that you feel it is relevant, otherwise you would not have mentioned it. Neither Lawrence or I have ever mentioned the load type being a factor in these measurements, as best I can recall. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

ltseung888	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #493 on: 2011-02-03, 02:54:36 »
Group: Guest	To make the debate meaningful, I shall take the following positions 1. Both the Pulsing by the 2n2222 and the actual load is EXTREMELY important in our measurement of Input and Output Instantaneous Power. 2. For a generalize waveform, the rms value MUST be used. 3. Even if the rms value does not give a perfect, accurate answer, it is useful for comparison purposes. 4. There is a theoretical best – the area integration method. The positive area and the negative area CANNOT be added with the sign. Negative Power is meaningless. Mean value MUST never be used involving such waveforms. 5. The RMS value turns the sign into positive. Square of a negative number will always be positive. Thus for comparison purposes, we can eyeball the Instantaneous Power Curve or use the rms Power Value. Do we have enough grounds for a proper scientific debate now??? *** Please set up a different thread for the on-lookers. We want them to contribute but not in the main “ring”.

vonwolf	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #494 on: 2011-02-03, 02:55:11 »
Group: Guest	This might not be relevant in the debate but is time not a factor? Can't a bartery load up a cap for shot bursts of power then recharge and do it again for the appearance of excess power but over time it all evens out. Pete

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #495 on: 2011-02-03, 03:02:35 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-02-03, 02:54:36 To make the debate meaningful, I shall take the following positions 1. Both the Pulsing by the 2n2222 and the actual load is EXTREMELY important in our measurement of Input and Output Instantaneous Power. 2. For a generalize waveform, the rms value MUST be used. 3. Even if the rms value does not give a perfect, accurate answer, it is useful for comparison purposes. 4. There is a theoretical best – the area integration method. The positive area and the negative area CANNOT be added with the sign. Negative Power is meaningless. Mean value MUST never be used involving such waveforms. 5. The RMS value turns the sign into positive. Square of a negative number will always be positive. Thus for comparison purposes, we can eyeball the Instantaneous Power Curve or use the rms Power Value. Do we have enough grounds for a proper scientific debate now??? No. Not to my satisfaction. Be specific. Lawrence, simply write down only two things and two things only, please. 1) One single specific issue that you wish to debate. Be specific and choose ONE thing only, not 4. 2) Choose a position or stance about that one specific issue. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #496 on: 2011-02-03, 03:05:46 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: vonwolf on 2011-02-03, 02:55:11 This might not be relevant in the debate but is time not a factor? Can't a bartery load up a cap for shot bursts of power then recharge and do it again for the appearance of excess power but over time it all evens out. Pete Pete, Appreciate your comment, but the debate we are trying to pursue is in regards to the specifics in power measurement. The issue of whether the device is overunity or not will be resolved once we can measure it using the accepted method as per the outcome of this debate. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #497 on: 2011-02-03, 03:25:03 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Lawrence, Harvey, Maybe this will help you get started, here is my issue and stance: 1) I wish to debate the following issue: The computation that must be applied to an instantaneous power trace in order to obtain the correct result for average power. 2) My stance on the issue stated in 1), is that a MEAN computation must be applied. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

vonwolf	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #498 on: 2011-02-03, 03:26:19 »
Group: Guest	Thanks poynt99 I understand your position, I was just trying to head off the next debate. Pete

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #499 on: 2011-02-03, 03:48:04 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	The number of issues can be many, and there are a few others I would like to debate with Lawrence. However, each issue should be dealt with in its own debate, and they all be tackled one at a time. In this way, we can address all of the issues Lawrence mentioned, one at a time. So what do you say Lawrence, shall we tackle the one I stated above first? .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-05-27, 01:54:29

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2