Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie, you are indeed an idiot. Far from having a "functional intelligence" you are thick headed, uncooperative and ignorant. All that would be excusable.....but you are also WRONG.

Everybody EXCEPT YOU understands that we have been talking NOT ABOUT THE DUTY CYCLE but only that time period when the gate signal to Q1 is positive 5 volts AS SHOWN IN YOUR SCOPE SHOT. We have not, for the past few pages, been concerned with the oscillating "OFF" portion at all. OF COURSE the duty cycle is important when discussing the AVERAGE POWER over a longer time period. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are only referring to the "on" portion at this time.

And if that's what you are crowing about, your argument is completely invalid, AS USUAL, because you either aren't paying attention or your ignorance is truly so abysmal that you cannot follow a simple technical discussion that even INCLUDES VISUAL AIDS.

Correct your errors, AINSLIE, and stop compounding them with more errors.


And this is the most fundamental conceptual error of all, and YOU KEEP MAKING IT because you are too arrogant to admit that you are full of baloney.

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

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.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

CORRECT YOUR ERRORS, Ainslie, FIRST, before you start criticising others with your ridiculous insults.

And you really ought to think a little about honoring the wishes of your host. CLEAN UP THE MESS YOU HAVE LEFT LYING ABOUT. Wrong circuit diagrams, bogus calculations, false claims, insults, lies.... you are a veritable disaster area.


Even your description of the same event changes. Compare that last quote above with how you described the SAME EVENT in your blog. YOU ARE A LIAR and you distort and misrepresent facts all the time. You aren't even CONSISTENT with your lies and misinterpretations and ridiculous assertions.

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG on every page of this thread. And in every post you make, you misrepresent something or other usually by outright lying about it. And you've been doing it FOR YEARS in just the same way. And as a result you've driven everybody away from you. Not even the trolls are defending you any more, have you noticed?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No picowatt...

Good one Rosemary.  So your only problem was with the instantaneous measurements?  Cool. 

Looks like everyone was correct, so what's the beef?

During the portion of the cycle discussed, 20 watts or so is indeed flowing.  Now, if you want the average draw, you are indeed correct as well.  Nice to see so much agreement for a change.  I thought the reading of the 'scope was in question, you know, like the FIG 3 discussion.

So, what's the beef?  What is this 'scope shot supposed to be showing anyway?  I didn't see the discussion.

Rather lengthy post for stating the obvious, don't you thiink?

NOT ACTUALLY.  Not even CLOSE.  3.33 watts is NOT 20 watts.  20 watts MAY explain the rate of temperature rise.  3.33 recurring CERTAINLY WOULD NOT.

Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Leon

Ainslie, you are indeed an idiot. Far from having a "functional intelligence" you are thick headed, uncooperative and ignorant. All that would be excusable.....but you are also WRONG.

Everybody EXCEPT YOU understands that we have been talking NOT ABOUT THE DUTY CYCLE but only that time period when the gate signal to Q1 is positive 5 volts AS SHOWN IN YOUR SCOPE SHOT. We have not, for the past few pages, been concerned with the oscillating "OFF" portion at all. OF COURSE the duty cycle is important when discussing the AVERAGE POWER over a longer time period. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. We are only referring to the "on" portion at this time.

And if that's what you are crowing about, your argument is completely invalid, AS USUAL, because you either aren't paying attention or your ignorance is truly so abysmal that you cannot follow a simple technical discussion that even INCLUDES VISUAL AIDS.

Correct your errors, AINSLIE, and stop compounding them with more errors.


And this is the most fundamental conceptual error of all, and YOU KEEP MAKING IT because you are too arrogant to admit that you are full of baloney.



CORRECT YOUR ERRORS, Ainslie, FIRST, before you start criticising others with your ridiculous insults.

And you really ought to think a little about honoring the wishes of your host. CLEAN UP THE MESS YOU HAVE LEFT LYING ABOUT. Wrong circuit diagrams, bogus calculations, false claims, insults, lies.... you are a veritable disaster area.


Even your description of the same event changes. Compare that last quote above with how you described the SAME EVENT in your blog. YOU ARE A LIAR and you distort and misrepresent facts all the time. You aren't even CONSISTENT with your lies and misinterpretations and ridiculous assertions.

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG on every page of this thread. And in every post you make, you misrepresent something or other usually by outright lying about it. And you've been doing it FOR YEARS in just the same way. And as a result you've driven everybody away from you. Not even the trolls are defending you any more, have you noticed?

This is yet more examples of a RANT.  I have JUST SHOWN YOU that I have NOTHING to correct.  You on the other hand are WRONG.  ENTIRELY SO.

Rosie Pose.

Sorry.  I addressed the wrong person.  It's confusing.  And I'm getting way too old.  LOL

[picowatt]

Guys, I take it that you've all seen the error.  You may recall that occasional reference that Leon aka TinselKoala, Eric, and on and on... makes regarding my claim that a watt is the measure of 1 Joule per second - and likewise a Joule is the measure of 1 watt per second?  That 'thing' that he's brought to our attention with the monotony of a hammer blow and with an identical level of mind numbing repetition?  You may recall it?  LOL.  Admittedly it was not included in EVERY post.  But probably on every PAGE of this thread.  Pretty much. More or less...  Well.  As ever - it seems that our Little Leon has been overreached himself.  He presumes to apply his own rather quixotic power analysis to just about everything within reach.  And then he parades an ENTIRELY incorrect interpretation of power related to joules or watts - whichever you please - while his entourage of vigilantes - including MilesEverSo, picowat and PhiChaser go that extra mile with him to ENDORSE that utterly erroneous example of our Little Leon doing 'THE MATH'     Well.  That makes it a 'CLEAN SWEEP'.  All that TAR that is busily being smeared by all those vigilantes?  They were wielding that tar brush with so much abandon that it's now slipped.  Right off target.  And now they've managed to blackened their own faces.  To a man.  And with it they've also blackened any hope of authority to comment on any power measurements EVER again.  If it weren't quite so sad it could even have been amusing.  In any event.  Let's hope that's made it clear for them.  The comfort is that I have a functional intelligence at my disposal - which albeit rather mundane and rather prosaic and certainly rather average - it is, nonetheless, MORE than enough.  It's not as if I'm up against the combined force of a combined high IQ.  I am only up against a combined force of 4 or 5 or 6 of them with nothing more than a gross average intelligence.  And I really mean gross.  And I really mean AVERAGE.  And I'm not sure that I mean 'intelligence' unless it's a misnomer.  LOL. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Seems to me, that if you were actually interested in discussing your technology, this post would have had some math results in it.  Why don't you just show TK et al that they are wrong and show your math?   

I see you feel the need to remind us of your intelligence once again.

It's getting old,

PW

[TinselKoala]

@PW:
Nobody but Ainslie could have missed the fact that we have been talking only about the time periods during which the gate signal to Q1 is positive, as indicated in my blowup of the scopeshot. She is crowing, AGAIN, about a hallucination of hers and therefore  ALL THAT GARBAGE she has spouted is, as usual, invalid.

The scope shot is important because it goes with the description of the "25.6 million Joule" bogus result that she obtained, and it is at the heart of her claim. The shot is from her blog, posts 117 and 118, reproduced below. Note the claims made, and also compare the description of the events given in the blog posts, made in real time, with how she has described the same events later on.... as in the quotation I've reproduced above. Yes, they are describing the exact same events !!

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html and also number 118.