Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is rich.

Our paper EXPLICITLY states that we have not qualified anything against the battery draw down and that this needs to be established.  And you PERSIST in advising all and sundry that this DISCLAIMER is therefore somehow claiming an out performance.  Are you utterly deluded by the written word - or do you think that our readers are UTTERLY stupid?  It can only be one or the other.

Here it is again...
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage
conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each
working day, during that period, continually subjected as they
were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this
extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss
of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.

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.

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

[TinselKoala]

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.

I am flabbergasted. There it is on your own blog page: a link to the PATENT. And there it is in your own words in the posts I've linked. CAN YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WRITING ANY MORE? You have indeed claimed many times to have a patent, and the story is just as I have said: you finally were FORCED to admit that you  do not, and since then you haven't done so overtly. BUT THE LINK IS STILL THERE on that abandoned blog page. Lost your password again, did you?

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

You bet I have further tests to conduct. You are trying to censor the truth. YOU CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE THING I'VE SAID with references. I have demonstrated IN YOUR OWN WORDS that you lie and distort the truth over and over again.
If you don't want to be bashed, then DO WHAT OUR HOST ASKED YOU TO DO, all those pages ago.

POST WORK OF YOUR OWN THAT SHOWS THAT I AM WRONG.

Of course we all know you cannot. WHERE ARE THE TESTS STEFAN ASKED YOU TO PERFORM WEEKS AND MONTHS AGO?

Nowhere, that's where.

[TinselKoala]

This is rich.

Our paper EXPLICITLY states that we have not qualified anything against the battery draw down and that this needs to be established.  And you PERSIST in advising all and sundry that this DISCLAIMER is therefore somehow claiming an out performance.  Are you utterly deluded by the written word - or do you think that our readers are UTTERLY stupid?  It can only be one or the other.

Here it is again...
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.
Rosemary

You are making a claim against the battery capacity right there. Call it a disclaimer, I call it weaseling.

YOU AND I BOTH KNOW that you believe you have exceeded the battery's capacity. Or did you finally revise your calculations below and see that you actually ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE to exceeding the capacity? You can't have it both ways, Marie Antoinette.

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.

You are claiming to have exceeded the battery's capacity, over and over and over again.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You are making a claim against the battery capacity right there. Call it a disclaimer, I call it weaseling.

YOU AND I BOTH KNOW that you believe you have exceeded the battery's capacity. Or did you finally revise your calculations below and see that you actually ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE to exceeding the capacity? You can't have it both ways, Marie Antoinette.
You are claiming to have exceeded the battery's capacity, over and over and over again.

Those references art NOT part of the paper therefore they are NOT part of the CLAIM.  And your highlighted text IS NOT A CLAIM OF OVER PERFORMANCE.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

But OK, fine, if you are no longer claiming to have exceeded the battery capacity, that's OK with me, certainly.

So... you are no longer claiming Overunity performance... in fact according to you you NEVER have claimed OU performance, and COP>17, COP=INFINITY, COP exceeds INFINITY, and COP>INFINITY are not to be construed as meaning "overunity" or "free energy" when coming from Ainslie. OK, that's also OK with me.

And you have withdrawn your claim to the 3 prizes, and .99 has accepted your official withdrawal of your claim for that prize. Good. Now we just have two more official withdrawals to go.

And you don't intend to do battery capacity testing, you will only "prove" what anyone can prove: a negative mean power product shown on an oscilloscope. And you aren't going to use this "proof" for a claim of overunity or free energy, because you never claim that. OK, that's fine with me too.

And of course I have Tar Baby, right here, right now, ready to reproduce every measurement you can make, RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, though... I've demonstrated some things with Tar Baby that you claim are impossible, like current flowing through the FG. So you will need to show that NERD behaves differently somehow.... or you will have to acknowledge fully what we all know already: Tar Baby does indeed perform just like NERD in all significant respects.