Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK

OK, then, how about just quoting the "commendations" themselves without revealing the "professionals" highly respected names.

YOU CANNOT. Go ahead, just make some "commendations" up, like you did for your alphabet companies who "endorsed" your earlier bogus claim of overunity performance. There are lots of professionals who HAVE read your "papers", though, and who have criticised them strongly, and who have chucked them into the circular file where they belong.

To what end should I quote them?  That you can then claim that I invented them and their comments? So NO. It would be absurd to do so.  Certainly NOT until I've got a moderated thread and their permissions.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

It seems that you are able to couple this zeal with an endless access to SPIN. 

COP INFINITY is MEASURED on our circuit using standard measurement protocols. 

YOU ARE NOT USING STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, which call for rigorous power supply decoupling, among other niceties that you are not respecting. Every time you say this "using standard measurement protocols" you are LYING.

We claim that this is MEASURED.  We have done over 200 experiments ALL of which validate those MEASUREMENTS.

AT THIS POINT, thick headed AINSLIE, nobody questions your MEASUREMENTS at all. Since they are easy to reproduce. YOUR MATH AND YOUR CLAIMS BASED ON YOUR MATH .... that is what is being questioned and that is what you cannot defend. I can tell you some highly respected names that summarily chuck your papers into the trash after the first read, they are so bad.

And we'll soon see if no-one comes forward with support - when the evidence of our tests will not only be unequivocal but they will support the evidence in our papers and they will be publicly demonstrated.

Rosie Pose

added.
And I actively dissuade any of my collaborators engaging here.  This thread is TOXIC.  It serves no purpose.  I only subscribe in as much as your 'spin' will otherwise not be addressed.  It's MUCH NEEDED.  But it only needs my input.  If it needed more I'd rethink this.

What's needed, Rosie Poser, is for you to respect our host's wishes and STOP POSTING YOUR NONSENSE and do the tests LIKE I HAVE DONE and show that your circuit does something different than mine does under the same circumstances. THIS YOU CANNOT DO so you won't even attempt it.

Yes, Tar Baby is toxic to NERD claims, that is certain... by REPRODUCING THEM. How odd.... the claimant must debunk the debunker who has actually reproduced all the data that the claimant's claim is based on.
AGAIN.

[TinselKoala]

Here. Just start with this one. Explain why it is right, or correct it, IN YOUR NEXT POST, or go away and play on the highway.

In any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

If you make statements like this you should be expected to defend them.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

YOU ARE NOT USING STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, which call for rigorous power supply decoupling, among other niceties that you are not respecting. Every time you say this "using standard measurement protocols" you are LYING. AT THIS POINT, thick headed AINSLIE, nobody questions your MEASUREMENTS at all. Since they are easy to reproduce. YOUR MATH AND YOUR CLAIMS BASED ON YOUR MATH .... that is what is being questioned and that is what you cannot defend. I can tell you some highly respected names that summarily chuck your papers into the trash after the first read, they are so bad.

We most certainly ARE using standard measurement protocols.

What's needed, Rosie Poser, is for you to respect our host's wishes and STOP POSTING YOUR NONSENSE and do the tests LIKE I HAVE DONE and show that your circuit does something different than mine does under the same circumstances. THIS YOU CANNOT DO so you won't even attempt it.

I would have no need to post if you own  posting, and your tests, and your attitude show some modicum of professionalism coupled with an earnest evaluation.  And when your comments and those of picowatt and MileHigh and FTC - no longer slander our work or my name.

Yes, Tar Baby is toxic to NERD claims, that is certain... by REPRODUCING THEM. How odd.... the claimant must debunk the debunker who has actually reproduced all the data that the claimant's claim is based on.

I believe you've attempted to 'replicate our work'?  And that under the banner of the 'Tar Baby'?  Rest assured.  We will NEVER associate with such an unfortunate title and we will never endorse work that is so utterly unscientifically presented. 

Rosie Pose.

[TinselKoala]

TK

To what end should I quote them?  That you can then claim that I invented them and their comments? So NO. It would be absurd to do so.  Certainly NOT until I've got a moderated thread and their permissions.

Rosie Pose

Look here, Ainslie. I have certified documents that aliens from Alpha Ophiuchi 8 are living in Des Moines, Iowa and influencing the world's weather patterns from there, to make Earth more habitable for them.
I can't show you these documents or the notarized statements from all the academics who have seen them and agreed that they are authentic, because you would just claim that I invented them. So NO. It would be absurd to do so.

That's why I DON'T TALK about things I cannot prove, like my alien documents. And you must not speak of "endorsements" or such if you are not prepared to produce them. Because, you see... NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU, since you don't even correct your basic math errors when they are pointed out to you.