Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT IT IS NOT THE 80 WATTS THAT I THOUGHT BUT ONLY THE 40 WATTS AT MOST.  40 WATT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH HEAT.  NOR IS IT AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH CURRENT.  YOUR COMPUTATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW IS WRONG.  NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT.  JUST WRONG.

Yes Ainslie, there is another way to put it. SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS of the current flow and show how mine is wrong. Use your presumed total impedance value for the shunt of 0.9 ohms or the more correct one of 1.15 ohms for the 1.5 MH oscs, or whatever you like. SHOW YOUR WORK THAT CONTRADICTS MINE.

You cannot.

Here, I'll even make it easy by reposting my analysis so YOU can SHOW WHERE IT IS WRONG. NOTE that I am ONLY concerned with the DC power, so the shunt's reactance is irrelevant.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You are wrong.

SHOW US HOW YOU CALCULATE POWER.

AND SHOW US HOW IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY MH AND .99 AND I AND THE HYPERPHYSICS SITE AND ALL THE WIKI AND TEXBOOKS DO IT.

Demonstrate your claims, AINSLIE.  You cannot.

And I can and have demonstrated many instances when you have clearly lied and also many cases when what you say is not true, for one reason or another, yet you have not corrected it when pointed out. Many of the things you have said about me are clearly lies.
But the biggest whopper is the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" whopper. That one is nothing but a baldfaced lie. And then there is the claim of the 25.6 million Joules whopper. YOU ARE A LIAR, AINSLIE and there is ample evidence of it. Almost 2 GB, in fact, in my database.

We have ENTIRELY COVERED THIS POINT.  YOU PERSIST IN ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT FLOW OUTSIDE OF ITS TIME REFERENCE.  IT CANNOT BE DONE.  NOT EVER.  NOT WITHIN STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.

You persist in REPEATEDLY assuming that battery voltage can be taken as an average over time.  AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG. 

[TinselKoala]

We have ENTIRELY COVERED THIS POINT.  YOU PERSIST IN ASSUMING THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT FLOW OUTSIDE OF ITS TIME REFERENCE.  IT CANNOT BE DONE.  NOT EVER.  NOT WITHIN STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.

You persist in REPEATEDLY assuming that battery voltage can be taken as an average over time.  AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG.

NO, Ainslie, YOU ARE WRONG. IN ADDITION, you are once again LYING and misrepresenting my work and what I actually DO show.

SHOW YOUR WORK refuting me. You cannot.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes Ainslie, there is another way to put it. SHOW YOUR CALCULATIONS of the current flow and show how mine is wrong. Use your presumed total impedance value of 0.9 ohms or the more correct one of 1.15 ohms, or whatever you like. SHOW YOUR WORK THAT CONTRADICTS MINE.

You cannot.

Here, I'll even make it easy by reposting my analysis so YOU can SHOW WHERE IT IS WRONG.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INSTANTANEOUS POWER - ON A SWITCHED CIRCUIT - UNLESS IT INCORPORATES TIME FACTORED IN TO THE APPLIED VOLTAGE AND THE APPLIED AMPERAGE BOTH.  YOU ARE ASSUMING QUIXOTIC NON-STANDARD POWER ANALYSIS THAT IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ON THE CONTRARY.  OUR WORK IS SHOWN IN GREAT DEPTH AND DETAIL IN OUR PAPER.  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY REQUIREMENT BEYOND SUCH DETAILED REPRESENTATION REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM.  WE INTEND GOING BEYOND THIS REQUIREMENT NONETHELESS TO INCORPORATE OUR FULL DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW THAT THE BATTERY IS ALSO ABLE TO EXCEED IT'S RATED PERFORMANCE.  BUT THAT TEST WILL NEVER BE DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD OR YOUR SPURIOUS AND INSULTING ANALYSIS OF OUR WORK.

NO, Ainslie, YOU ARE WRONG. IN ADDITION, you are once again LYING and misrepresenting my work and what I actually DO show.

SHOW YOUR WORK refuting me. You cannot.