Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

So... by cleverly setting the CVR trace to "AC coupling", have I perhaps eliminated a contribution of a DC component of the current to the math product, by removing any offset however small caused by it? Hence allowing the math trace to be computed using the AC oscillations alone, ignoring the DC component of the current in the CVR? In which direction is any DC current likely to be?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct.  No one moreso than I wish it were not true.  Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring.  After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"? 
PW

Guys - here's another one of those statements that we're meant to take on nothing more than good faith.  Like picowatt's statement that he trains under 6's in the art of 'soldering'.  Or that those same preschoolers have a functional intelligence which means - essentially - that they're adequately schooled in the 3 'r's to an acceptable and functioning adult level. LOL (by which I mean 'God help us).  And now - in the face of TK's latest numbers - we have picowatt essentially seeing an ever greater reliance on Poynty Point's argument related to the battery average.  And this is the argument that I will REALLY enjoy.  Because then both TK and our resident in 'expert' picowatt - will be obliged to prove some interesting features related to the circuit's open condition during the oscillation phase.  And then they'll try and infer that they have to explain things to me in words of one syllable - when we've already addressed this rather obvious end of the argument - at length in both our papers.  And they haven't even 'reached' that argument.  Yet.  TK hasn't understood it.  So he dismisses it as a 'word salad'.  In fact I don't think that TK even sees where the evidence is pointing.  picowatt's seen it.  But he ducks answering under the 'spin' that I'm too dull witted to understand anything at all.  LOL (By which I mean - what the hell)  But what is particularly offensive - is that 'expressed' regret.  Here it is again.

"Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct.  No one moreso than I wish it were not true.  Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring.  After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"? "

My dear picowatt.  IF you find that Poynty Point's analysis is correct - then you will most certainly need to justify it.  Which you will NOT be able to do within the context of classical and mainstream assumptions.  And IF you still do not see something 'unusual OR previously unnoticed' then the fault is NOT with the evidence but with your certain want of the required expertise to even understand that evidence.  And frankly - I rather suspect that you PREFER to INFER and for that matter IMPLY that there's nothing unusual - because you're rather hoping that no-one will see the evidence for themselves.  I need to disabuse you of any such hopes.  I will MOST CERTAINLY explain this for our readers - with an appropriate series of videos that I hope will clarify these points ENTIRELY.  These same points that TK is simply NOT able to address because he hasn't even seen them.  He's still busy doing a refresher course in reactive power courtesy R J Smith.  LOL (By which I mean - what an idiot)

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Quotation from Miss Power Expert Ainslie:

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. Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Got that, Bubba?

Now go play in the street, Little Miss Mosfet. Until you can show unequivocal evidence that your batteries do not discharge while heating a load, then you can't show anything at all unusual or not perfectly well understood by those who have actually read that textbook, sat the exams, and didn't drop out of school when they encountered a simple algebra problem.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And TK - FOR THE RECORD

That 555 switch that you SAY you 'invented'?  That's very elementary.  In fact it was proposed to us by both Groundloop and by Stefan - and we made our own variation of it to test ourselves.  Sadly, for you - it has obviated the ONLY remaining counter argument to our claim.  So I'm delighted that you took that 'final' step.  And clearly you did NOT see where it was pointing.  Or I'm reasonably satisfied that you would not then have taken that trouble.

Don't you recall?  How picowatt posted - 'so you've gone ahead and built this.  Oh Well' - or words to that effect.  I'm relying on my poor memory here so the words are loosely transcribed.  But I knew precisely why he would have preferred that you DID NOT build that 555 switch.  I certainly did NOT expect you to go the lengths of powering it from the battery supply source.  But EVEN BETTER that you did.

Well done.  And thank you.  It seems that we've got the PERFECT debunker.  He can't help but prove what he's trying to debunk.  It's delicious.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

And TK - FOR THE RECORD

FOR THE RECORD you idiot....

That 555 switch that you SAY you 'invented'?  That's very elementary.  In fact it was proposed to us by both Groundloop and by Stefan - and we made our own variation of it to test ourselves.

In the first place there is NO "switch" in the circuit we have been using lately: the bias supply is straight DC. It's impossible for you to understand that the circuit that I am using inverts voltage and provides a MORE NEGATIVE voltage than it is supplied with. And it does NOT "switch" its output: it provides DC output. And nowhere do I say I "invented" it... I designed it for its present function, and I clearly state that I got it from a book. So you once again are WRONG in both your points.  Maybe somebody can explain the operation of the circuit I'm using to you... I've posted its schematic at least twice now, but here it is again. What part of it do you not understand? I AM NOT USING ANY 555 SWITCH OR TIMER CIRCUIT as you call it (the mosfets are the switch anyway, the 555 timer is not a switch at all) and haven't been for a week, and neither you nor Stefan nor anyone else has proposed using a circuit of this type. The 555 chip in my inverter does not send any pulsating signal to the mosfets, it sends a voltage-reversed DC signal to them, just as an external battery would. Sadly for you.

Sadly, for you - it has obviated the ONLY remaining counter argument to our claim.  So I'm delighted that you took that 'final' step.  And clearly you did NOT see where it was pointing.  Or I'm reasonably satisfied that you would not then have taken that trouble.

On the contrary, Ainslie. I have known all along exactly where this has been going. When you acknowledge, as you have just done, that my circuit "proves" your claim..... then the real work begins, of demolishing your claim by dissecting Tar Baby right in front of your.

Don't you recall?  How picowatt posted - 'so you've gone ahead and built this.  Oh Well' - or words to that effect.  I'm relying on my poor memory here so the words are loosely transcribed.  But I knew precisely why he would have preferred that you DID NOT build that 555 switch.  I certainly did NOT expect you to go the lengths of powering it from the battery supply source.  But EVEN BETTER that you did.

Well done.  And thank you.  It seems that we've got the PERFECT debunker.  He can't help but prove what he's trying to debunk.  It's delicious.

Rosie Pose

So ... then... you acknowledge that I have duplicated your results and have even gone farther by using only the running batteries and that I have PROVEN what I am "trying to debunk".... your claim of overunity performance.

Right?

Is this a "switch"?