another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie · March 19, 2012, 01:13:16 AM

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 01:06:08 AM
@.99:
She doesn't understand that "PER" means "divided by" in the equations.

She thinks that "1 Joule = 1 Watt PER second" is mathematically the same as saying "1 Watt = 1 Joule PER second." So it's no use highlighting the "W=J/S" or the "J = W x S" definitions in the text... she has no clue what that means. If she can't even immediately tell by inspection that 220 x 20 isn't 2200.... you are doomed from the start.

This is what happens when you don't take algebra in high school, kiddies.

LOL This is really good. 'Per' means 'divide by'? Who would have thought? Thankfully the readers here are absolute idiots and TK's knowledge of latin likely not be questioned. What ever next?

Rosie Pose

TinselKoala · March 19, 2012, 01:13:21 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 12:55:45 AM
AT LAST. You need only refer to our second paper. The entire explanation is there. And that paper is copied on my blogspot. Check it out TK. Then you'll possibly understand what our actual claim is. Not what you ASSUME our claim is.

Golly guys. The man assumes he has the right to comment when he doesn't even know what he's commenting about. It reminds me of his insistence in those posts - before it was locked - that our claim had already been debunked. Then only did he realise he had never even done our test. The man's been accessed for damage control. But I'm not sure they've found the right man yet. I think Poynty's the best option to carry this counter argument. And that because he understand the implications of all this where the rest of them have no clue.

That's just a word of advice to our troll masters - wherever they are.

Rosie Pose,
AKA AS Rosemary, Rosie, Rose, Rosie Rose, and on an on and on,
I'm suffering from multi identity confusions.

That's not the only confusions you're suffering from, liar.
The claim that I am disputing is here in this thread multiple times, in your own words and figures. I'm not going to quote it again, but it's post number 666 in this thread. You say you put 25.6 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. That's what you are claiming, until you officially and publicly retract it, and that's what I'm disputing, for the moment. I don't care if you used a flmping BLOWTORCH to do it. It only takes a bit over two megaJoules to completely boil away 900 grams of water starting from 16 degrees C.
I don't need to read your paper again to dispute your claim of 25.6 million Joules which is based on an incorrect calculation three different ways at least.

Rosemary Ainslie · March 19, 2012, 01:16:48 AM

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 19, 2012, 01:13:21 AM
That's not the only confusions you're suffering from, liar.
The claim that I am disputing is here in this thread multiple times, in your own words and figures. I'm not going to quote it again, but it's post number 666 in this thread. You say you put 25.6 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. That's what you are claiming, until you officially and publicly retract it, and that's what I'm disputing, for the moment. I don't care if you used a flmping BLOWTORCH to do it. It only takes a bit over two megaJoules to completely boil away 900 grams of water starting from 16 degrees C.
I don't need to read your paper again to dispute your claim of 25.6 million Joules which is based on an incorrect calculation three different ways at least.

Golly. I almost thought there - for a brief moment - that you wanted to keep this on topic. Silly of me. I should have known better. You're only anxious to take this off topic.

Cheers TK. How goes the funding for your little cottage by the sea? Have you managed to get enough together since the market collapsed? I see you've lost that easy access to all those oscilloscopes you had. But my guess is that they were all of them in need of repair. Do you see now how wasted were your efforts on that 'math trace' number. You CLEAN forgot the need to first replicate the waveform. But your videos then were as entertaining as they are now. Can't wait to see you replicate our own circuit.

Ever Rosie

TinselKoala · March 19, 2012, 01:19:33 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 19, 2012, 01:13:16 AM
LOL This is really good. 'Per' means 'divide by'? Who would have thought? Thankfully the readers here are absolute idiots and TK's knowledge of latin likely not be questioned. What ever next?

Rosie Pose

It's getting hard to decode your sarcasm. Do you mean that you think that "PER" does NOT mean "divided by" when used in this way?

Or are you really calling the readers here absolute idiots? I note that nobody, not even Mags, is defending your calculations. Eatenbyagrue, whether you realize it yet or not, is repeating the exact same course of correction that I have posted, at least three times now.

TinselKoala · March 19, 2012, 01:23:30 AM

Dodge bob and weave, Rosemary, but don't address the real issues. You claim: 25.6 million Joules. 47.5 MEGAWATTS in six hours on your electric bill in your oxtail soup example. A Joule = a Watt PER second.
These are the real issues: your errors and misunderstandings, which invalidate any claim of overunity based on them.

FYI, I do still have access to better oscilloscopes than you will ever be allowed to touch. What is your evidence for your accusation that my equipment is not working properly?