Testing the TK Tar Baby

[poynt99]

.99,

What am I missing here?

As long as VCSR averages negative, won't any positive value for VBATT averaged result in a negative product?

PW

Who said VCSR average is negative? 

[picowatt]

Who said VCSR average is negative? 

.99,

I did, and it was an assumption/mistake.

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again.  I'll not answer him.  Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.

I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum.  This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread  'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed.  Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable. 

I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test.  This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators.  And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test.  This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.

While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this.  The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure.  While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test.  Therefore both tests are required.

In terms of a 'time line'.  Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early  May.  The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house.  I need to set these tests up in our study.  At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons.  This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country.  All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week.  Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing.  But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things.  I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge.  And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com.  I've got lots of homework to do before I get started.  And I won't be 'rushed'.  I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past.  Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence.  And I've been well 'bitten'.  I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented.  That way the results will be unequivocal.  It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'. 

But I'll get there.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise.  A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters.  I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread.  And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today.  Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary 

[TinselKoala]

No, this one smarty pants 

If there is no description accompanying a video link, I usually don't click on the link.

Even when it's from me? I'm crushed. You missed the blown-apart mosfet, then. (Unfortunately a post-mortem, not live.)

[picowatt]

Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again.  I'll not answer him.  Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.

I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum.  This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread  'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed.  Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable. 

I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test.  This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators.  And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test.  This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.

While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this.  The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure.  While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test.  Therefore both tests are required.

In terms of a 'time line'.  Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early  May.  The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house.  I need to set these tests up in our study.  At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons.  This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country.  All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week.  Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing.  But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things.  I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge.  And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com.  I've got lots of homework to do before I get started.  And I won't be 'rushed'.  I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past.  Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence.  And I've been well 'bitten'.  I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented.  That way the results will be unequivocal.  It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'. 

But I'll get there.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise.  A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters.  I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread.  And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today.  Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

My condolences to you for your losses Rosemary.

PW