Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Repost:

I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.


MileHigh

And I would like to see considerably more RESPECT for the subject at hand and for me - before I will EVER 'seriously' acknowledge your posts.  I suspect that we're both doomed to frustration.  Which is probably as well - since our interests are so diverse.

Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You fool. If you paid attention you might notice that I HAVE ASKED OUR PARTICIPANTS TO DO THEIR OWN MATH on that first shot you reproduced.

And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.

And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.

What is particularly laughable is that you're now quoting the Bible?  Good heaven's TK?  Do you really think that you can make us think that there's any residual trace of Christian decency in your make up?  And then THIS POST?  Where you AGAIN try and spin that watts can be determined outside of time?  I saw your rather pedantic contribution earlier.  Unfortunately our Standard Model has already determined the basis of wattage analysis.  Power equals the volts over time, x the amps over time.  You're SKEWING the facts.  As ever.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Guys, again  just as a reminder...

And I hope they do, because it shows that the HEAT IN THE LOAD comes mostly when THERE ARE NO MAGIC OSCILLATIONS.

And the negative power product has been explained to you so many times I can't count them and I KNOW you can't count them. Anyone can produce it with any number of component combinations and it is A MEASUREMENT ARTEFACT.

Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints.  A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms.  IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED.  Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required.  And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable.  Poynty denies there's a benefit.  Groundloop's checking it out.  And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact. 

What TK is trying to do is diminish the significance.  We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions.  But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous.  And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.

Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

So. The bottom line is this. We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace.

Yes, actually..... you do.


And YOU can prove that you do... by trying to make your negative averages and math trace WITHOUT IT.

[TinselKoala]

And Guys, again  just as a reminder...
Notwithstanding TK's allegations there is NO WAY UNDER GOD'S SUN that the standard model allows for a breach of Kirchhoff's unity constraints.  A negative wattage is a contradiction in terms.  IF this oscillation exposes that fact then that oscillation needs to be ANALYSED.  Which is PRECISELY why Groundloop's efforts are required.  And why Poynty's contributions are invaluable.  Poynty denies there's a benefit.  Groundloop's checking it out.  And since TK himself has shown how easily replicable is this result - and since both Groundloop and Poynty can also do so - Poynty's efforts thus far on simulations - then - that REPETITION is the proof that this is NOT a measurements artefact. 

Why TK is trying to do is diminish the significance.  We've YET to determine if there is any benefit in terms of energy efficiency under controlled test conditions.  But there is NO DENYING that the measurement ITSELF is anomalous.  And there's no denying that the measurement is ALSO repeatable.

Again Kindest regards,
Rosemary

The measurement is not "anomalous". A repeatable, well understood and explained ERROR is not "anomalous" at all.

And I repeat: DO THE MATH on that scope trace. You might find something interesting. Not YOU, Ainslie, because I know you aren't capable of it. But GL, or .99, or MH, or Stefan, or ANYONE can do it... and come to a rather different conclusion than you do.