Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

WHERE HAS ANYONE PROVED THAT IT IS ERRONEOUS?  FAR FROM IT.  If something is measured - repeatedly - then it is NOT an error.  Unless the applied protocols are in error.  And THAT MUCH has not been proved.  You are jumping the gun TK.  As ever.  And your analysis of power related to that little waveform analysis applied to our downloads - is LAUGHABLY inexact.

Rosie Pose

Over and over again, Ainslie, your miserable excuse for "reasoning" is addled, by age or illness I don't know.

And you can't be serious: errors CAN AND ARE repeated all the time. AND YOU LIE EVERY TIME YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And lest this rather significant post of mine by buried by these utterly inane allegations by our little TK - here guys is a repost...

And Guys, again  just as a reminder...

And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.

And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.

Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints.  A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms.  IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED. Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required.  And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable.  Poynty denies there's a benefit. Groundloop's checking it out.  And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact. 

What TK is trying to do is diminish the significance.  We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions.  But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous.  And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.

Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

I would bother to answer this ALLEGATION for the benefit of our readers if you also took the trouble to quote the context of its reference.  It strikes me as a rather REQUIRED condition to your multiple ALLEGATIONS to keep all context of all references out of reach.  Which is again further proof of your rather reckless desire to distort my statements while you SPIN your SPIN and THROW that HOT TAR.

Rosie Pose

The link is there, you liar. The context is perfectly clear.

DO THE MATH. YOU have claimed that you can make your negative power product and the math trace without the oscillations. IT IS THERE IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Now do it.

Put up OR SHUT UP, Ainslie.

Look at the bottom left of the image. Look at this link. YOU ARE A LIAR.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279347/#msg279347

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Over and over again, Ainslie, your miserable excuse for "reasoning" is addled, by age or illness I don't know.

And you can't be serious: errors CAN AND ARE repeated all the time. AND YOU LIE EVERY TIME YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.

And so you allege - TK.  Over and over and over.  With a regularity that diminishes the force of this statement in direct proportion to the number of times that you repeat it.  You are running out of time here TK.  You must be feeling rather frantic.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

And lest this rather significant post of mine by buried by these utterly inane allegations by our little TK - here guys is a repost...

And Guys, again  just as a reminder...Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints.  A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms.  IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED. Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required.  And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable.  Poynty denies there's a benefit. Groundloop's checking it out.  And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact. 

What TK is trying to do is diminish the significance.  We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions.  But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous.  And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.

Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary

You are not breaching any of KCL constraints. You are not using anything like a "standard model". You don't even know how to calculate power and energy! And I have alleged nothing like what YOU LIE about in reference to me.
I would be HAPPY for GL and .99 and anyone to analyze that scopeshot, which you now are trying to bury.
Here it is again. Notice that I give it its correct filenumber so it can be put in sequence with your other hidden data.

What is the average power shown, NOT INCLUDING THE OSCILLATIONS? Just leave them out. Calculate only the DC POWER. then you will have to explain how the oscillations can CANCEL all that power and REPLACE IT BACK INTO THE BATTERY.