Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

Her brain is not working, that is for sure.
She understands how to calculate DC power. I've seen her do it. Why she does not grasp that a 20 second ON time is DC.... well, I know why. It is because the answer is incompatible with her belief system and her ego defenses kick in and prevent her from thinking rationally.

Consider: She knows that ordinary DC power is nothing special. If there is magic in her circuit it MUST be happening during the oscillations. However, even she has got to be able to see that the oscillations CANNOT POSSIBLY affect what is happening during the non-oscillating DC portion that is 20 seconds long out of a 2 minute period.
And she is faced with the embarrassment of riches that I have been trying to point out over the past day or two. The oscillations themselves, in these few high heat trials that have substantial power in the DC portion, MUST have a high negative power in order to offset the high DC power and bring the average down into the negative numbers.
And I see NO EVIDENCE of that high negative power in the TRACES THEMSELVES.

Therefore she must deny the power in the DC portion. Especially since she's claimed that 1) THERE ISN'T ANY, and 2) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BATTERY POWER BEING SUPPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT. But there is, and there is, and it is this that is heating her load  and making her mosfets fail when she tries 72 volts on her battery. She thinks her mosfets fail because of high voltage -- hence her choice of the silly expensive high voltage high-resistance IRFPG50 instead of the cheaper faster lower Rdss IRF830a for example.... but really it is because of HIGH DC CURRENTS and the heat they cause.

I've said it before.  The ONLY thing that is big about our little TK is the infinite range of his profound ignorance related to FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS.  IT'S a lack that he shares in equal measure with picowatt and sean - boundless and infinite as it is.  The pathetic reach that TK now indulges in trying to restructure physics to suit his sad argument - is simply further proof of the contempt he feels for you - our readers and for science - BOTH.  There is the outside chance that all three of them have a passing knowledge of electronics.  But electronics is not and nver has been enough to comment on matters scientific.  And if their advices are NOT based on ignorance then the problem at hand is considerably more disturbing ... if possible.

Guys - again, in that 2 watt analogy that I drew?  If your standard normal applied switching cycle - EVER enabled more dissipation of energy than 2 watts then you got something that needs URGENT investigation.  And it would attract CONSIDERABLY more attention than any of the modest claims we make about our technology.  Very tame by comparison.

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

 http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291652/#msg291652

This is WRONG by the way.  Q2 is responsible for the oscillation.  I know this.  But for the total control of the required heat outputs we need Q1. I'm not sure how else to increase the heat to get the system to work.  It needs the oscillating cycle but the heat output is exponentially increased subject to some small required output from the battery during that short 18% ON time.  It only needs to be a little under a quarter of a watt to get the element to that 240 degrees centigrade.

Well.... we need Q1 for the total control of the required heat outputs, don't we. Exponentially increased heat output during that short 18 % ON time.

Methinks that the "quarter of a watt" figure might not be accurate. Quarter of a volt drop on the CVR maybe? Who really knows. But it certainly is clear that Ainslie knows that she needs that Q1 in there, working, in order to get her high heat.

She understands her circuit better than she makes out. But this post shows that she also understands that it is a fake. Now with this kind of statement that PROVES she knows that Q1 contributes power during its DC current phase and that the oscillations have nothing to do with this phase ..... she has now proven that she is engaging not in simple error .... but in something far worse.


   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

hello MileHigh

TK:

I am just going to repeat my stance on all of Rosemary's battery energy "calculations" and water heating "calculations."

It's all junk, all of it, and it doesn't even merit any discussion at all.

It's all based on imprecise anecdotal observation and allegation.  It's _pure_ junk.  Rosemary should never even discuss it if she wants to try to be scientific and I think it's a waste of time for anybody to discuss it in the forums.

I am just giving you my personal opinion, not telling anybody what to do.  For me in certain cases there are strict absolutes and this is one of them.  Rosemary has probably recounted her various heating and boiling water stories about 20 times and I don't really pay any attention.

MileHigh

Are you referring to our claim that we dissipate energy while we measuring no energy delivered from a supply source?  Or the claim that we can take water to boil with batteries that are disconnected from the circuit and thereby unable to supply any energy at all?  Or.  are you referring to our earlier COP>17 claim where we MEASURED a COP>17? 

I agree.  It's difficult to believe.  Thankfully our readers' credibility will not be taxed when we demonstrate this.  Sadly we WON'T be demonstrating it on this forum. 

Regards
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, regarding this little contribution by our equally little TK...

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291652/#msg291652

Well.... we need Q1 for the total control of the required heat outputs, don't we. Exponentially increased heat output during that short 18 % ON time.

Methinks that the "quarter of a watt" figure might not be accurate. Quarter of a volt drop on the CVR maybe? Who really knows. But it certainly is clear that Ainslie knows that she needs that Q1 in there, working, in order to get her high heat.

She understands her circuit better than she makes out. But this post shows that she also understands that it is a fake. Now with this kind of statement that PROVES she knows that Q1 contributes power during its DC current phase and that the oscillations have nothing to do with this phase ..... she has now proven that she is engaging not in simple error .... but in something far worse.

We have waveform samples that show that the current during the water to boil test defaulted to ZERO during the short on period of the duty cycle.  I'll look forward to disclosing this as well.  Seemingly TK didn't manage to snaffle the more significant numbers that we have.

Again - all the best and IGNORE ALL THAT SPIN
Rosemary

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I've said it before.  The ONLY thing that is big about our little TK is the infinite range of his profound ignorance related to FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS.  IT'S a lack that he shares in equal measure with picowatt and sean - boundless and infinite as it is.  The pathetic reach that TK now indulges in trying to restructure physics to suit his sad argument - is simply further proof of the contempt he feels for you - our readers and for science - BOTH.  There is the outside chance that all three of them have a passing knowledge of electronics.

Your little sales pitch, that "everybody else is clueless except for me" is not being bought by the "guys" or anybody else for that matter.  It's the same old story, the same old gutter talk.  You can't even argue the technical points so your argument is "they're stupid."  It's sad and pathetic when you do that.

If you only could get a bird's eye view and understand how your own technical credibility is zero.  So you are just flailing your arms uselessly when you try to allege that other people are stupid.

MileHigh