Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Here is the rest of the paragraph where AINSLIE is copying that little equation which she doesn't understand.

Ainslie is like a parrot. She parrots back words and equations and occasionally seems correct in context, but when you probe more deeply you come up against the fundamental conceptual error that she does not even acknowledge: the distinction between a quantity (conserved) and a rate (not necessarily conserved). And just like a parrot she shrieks and chatters when she is disturbed, but her shriekings, just like the parrot's, consist of words whose meanings she does not grasp in the slightest.

[TinselKoala]

@PhiChaser (and EA too of course)
Your efforts are appreciated, by me anyway, but you know that the person who needs to grasp what you are saying cannot do so. She is handicapped by her ignorance and crippled by her gigantic ego, both of which conspire to cause her to ignore anything that conflicts with her "thesis"... which is really only a hand-waving bunch of word-salad conjectures with no connection to reality. She simply cannot absorb it; it runs off her like water off a duck's back, only with less effect, since the duck, at least, has sense enough to get out of the rain.

Look at what is on the WIKI page IMMEDIATELY ABOVE the paragraph -- on mechanical power -- where she lifted that equation averaging WORK over TIME.

[TinselKoala]

LOL.  I think my math may have been out a tad.  I think that number should be 8. 

Rosie Pose

So that number comes from punching the calculator keys for "20" and "division" and "2.5". That makes 8 all right, now that you have actually CORRECTED ONE OF YOUR MANY and CONTINUAL MISTAKES.

Now... show me how our calculations of 20 Watts instantaneous power during the ON stage is an error.  I suggest you review the WIKI pages you keep parroting and try to grasp the definition of instantaneous power... also called POWER... and its unit the WATT. I have made no errors, and you have made at least THREE while criticising my work.

Your equation, by the way, does NOT mean "watts" with that "W", but rather WORK, which is in the electrical case... the JOULE.

Total Joules ( or the Change ..the DELTA ... in the number of Joules) divided by the TIME (or the Change ..the DELTA... in the Time) results in the AVERAGE POWER during that time duration. The energy is in JOULES and the time is in SECONDS... and the answer is in Joules per second.... that is,  in WATTS. The W in your equation means WORK, Polly, not WATTS.

And that's what that equation means, Polly Parrot.

[TinselKoala]

But what a masterful RED HERRING this has all been.

Isn't it wonderful how attention has been skillfully deflected away from YET ANOTHER refutation of an AINSLIE ridiculous claim? This has been buried under the Ainslie-piles yet again.

Ainslie asserted, in her overweeningly arrogant and disrespectful manner:

What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'. "

And TK replied, refuting her exactly and soundly:

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


Polly Parrot is the QUEEN of disinformation. She's attempted to have this thread suppressed, she's obfuscated and prevaricated and distorted and bloviated and ranted, but what she has NEVER done is to honestly and openly try to DISPROVE her own interpretations of her data. Nor has she made the slightest effort to fill in the yawning chasms in her education by studying a little basic algebra and electronics. 

But she is really good at burying anything that conflicts with her delusions.

[MileHigh]

Woo!  My brain is hurting!

That was a lot of mental energy and keystrokes expended to review the concepts of instantaneous and average power.

Joit!  Joit!  Where are you!!??  We need your help!   

Oh my God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U104DXEYHbA