Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

More utterly unsubstantiated nonsense.  I have NEVER claimed to have a patent.  EVER.  I have not even IMPLIED that we have a patent.   I did NOT engage with any EXPERTS EVER - on that forum.  Certainly NOT with anyone who had designed MOSFET's or any TRANSISTORS.  I certainly DID NOT expect or ask anyone to build the circuit.  It did not even occur to me.  I was NOT banned from that forum - in short order.  I was BANNED long after I joined EF.com and then because I posted a portrait of one of their members showing that his head was full of fish.  And I followed this up with an appropriate limerick.  It had NOTHING to do with our work or my thesis.  And I NEVER progressed my thesis on that forum  EVER.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary, your threads are still available there and anyone can look and see that you are lying YET AGAIN.

Reference to "THE PATENT" :http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008/09/patent.html

Naked Scientist thread referring to "taking out the patent" :
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0 reply # 17

I assure you that the people she was talking to had the impression, until they checked, that Ainslie had a patent based on statements like this... as she intended.

The Naked Scientist thread where she solicits replication, beginning with the very first post:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0

Within that thread you can see her prevarication about whether her "thesis" is a "theory" or a "model" but she most certainly is pushing her conjectures there.

And you can simply skip to the end of that thread and see why she got herself banned.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350

The people on that forum most certainly are experts... you define them otherwise only because they disagree with you.

You are such a transparent liar, Ainslie.
Why don't you EVER support your assertions with references, like I ALWAYS do? It's because you CANNOT, you miserable liar you.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh,

TK:

I saw the Lissajous clip.  It felt like that "Lost" show minus the hot Latina.  lol

Here is a doobie-liscious Lissajous clip, an "inside the Lissajous" kind of feeling!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdmNom9xmE

Meanwhile.... life goes on...  *sigh*

Rosemary make some cheese and test your batteries!
Make some cheese and test your batteries!
Churn some cheese and test your batteries!
Eat some cheese and test your batteries!

Make cheese not war.  If there is any cheese to be found...

MileHigh

Our 'cheese' at you put it is well branded - well matured - and very much available for public consumption.  It's been advertised in 5 papers - and is about to be brought to the public forum for an official launch and 'tasting' in about 2 to three weeks from now.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim. How else can you claim that the batteries have not discharged, or that a particular test used more than the battery's capacity? You are squirming like a worm on a hot skillet, Ainslie.

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.

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.

The battery capacity is an integral part of the overunity claim of Ainslie. Does anyone believe that it is not? Anyone besides the mendacious Ainslie, that is.

And, Ainslie.... a "correction" isn't a correction until it's POSTED and NOTED and an effort is made to assure that ALL COPIES OF THE INCORRECT POSTING are somehow corrected or at least notified.
There is no indication that any errors or corrections have been made to your "papers". These linked here, for example, certainly have NOT been corrected.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/226-golly.html

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, your threads are still available there and anyone can look and see that you are lying YET AGAIN.

Reference to "THE PATENT" :http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008/09/patent.html

Naked Scientist thread referring to "taking out the patent" :
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0 reply # 17

I assure you that the people she was talking to had the impression, until they checked, that Ainslie had a patent based on statements like this... as she intended.

The Naked Scientist thread where she solicits replication, beginning with the very first post:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0

Within that thread you can see her prevarication about whether her "thesis" is a "theory" or a "model" but she most certainly is pushing her conjectures there.

And you can simply skip to the end of that thread and see why she got herself banned.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350

The people on that forum most certainly are experts... you define them otherwise only because they disagree with you.

You are such a transparent liar, Ainslie.
Why don't you EVER support your assertions with references, like I ALWAYS do? It's because you CANNOT, you miserable liar you.

NO TK.  It is not ME that is the liar.  Those links do NOT PROMOTE MY THESIS.  The thesis is NOT MINE TO PROMOTE.  It promotes the model that relies entirely on KNOWN PHYSICS.  WHAT THESIS THEN IS MINE?  And I have NEVER claimed to have a patent.  EVER.  Not even by innuendo.  I would be ASHAMED to own any such.

TK.  I think this thread is now no longer about further tests of yours and is now regressing to a 'bash Rosemary Ainslie' theme which I think is thoroughly exhausted.  I also therefore suggest that this thread is closed - unless you have any further tests to conduct.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

MileHigh,
Our 'cheese' at you put it is well branded - well matured - and very much available for public consumption.  It's been advertised in 5 papers - and is about to be brought to the public forum for an official launch and 'tasting' in about 2 to three weeks from now.

Rosie Pose

You aren't going to be showing any real tests of anything. Anyone can reproduce your "negative mean power" measurements and we all know you aren't going to be doing any tests of your battery capacity. And we also know that your idea of "standard measurement protocols" has nothing to do with standard measurement protocols... because we have many times pointed you to correct standard protocols from Agilent, Tektronix, IEEE and ASTM for measuring power, energy, and battery capacity and you ignore them and use your own uncorrected mindless multiplication of scope traces and your voltmeter.... which are definitely NOT standard measurement protocols for the kind of claims you are making.


Oh... sorry, I forgot. Now you are not making ANY claims any more. So big deal, go and do your demos however you like, they have no significance at all. But you won't be able to PROVE ME WRONG with any of it, because TAR BABY PERFORMS JUST LIKE NERD in all significant respects, and YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DOESN'T.