Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Not actually Mags.  Picowatt's questions were answered on my locked thread.  He simply denied that they'd been answered.  I re-answered them - YET AGAIN.  And he simply continued to ask them.  You really need to see the big picture.  It's the fact that these pages are turned so quickly and none of you have the kind of interest that extends past the last page turned.  Sadly.  Which makes those propaganda techniques HIGHLY efficient.

Rosemary

No, you have never answered my question.

You ARGUED that the 'scope was being read wrong.  First you argued the offset numbers needed to be factored in.  Then you argued that the 'scope needed to be AC coupled.  Neither argument is valid.  Check with LeCroy!

There is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, this is a "given".

So,

In FIG3, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, there is +12 volts indicated as beiing applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on.  Yet, during that same portion of the FG cycle, there is no current flow indicated via the CSR as would be expected if Q1 were fully on.

SImilarly, in FIG7, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn Q1 on, and again no expected current flow is observed via the CSR.

In FIG5, made the month prior, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approximately +5 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1, and as expected, current flow is indeed observed via the CSR.

Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?

During the FIG3 and FIG7 tests, was Q1 damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic?

[TinselKoala]

Rose, you better go back and look at that quote you posted of TK.  It contained nothing in reference to you.  Your response is just insane if it is in reference to the post you pasted.  LOOK!

MaGs

Her "response" is just insane, period. I suppose she has no dictionary, since she thinks that Steam comes from a 64 degree heating element, and she now claims that she is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WATER TEMPERATURE and that they never measured the water temperature? What planet are we on now, Magsy?

Ainslie said,

That paper unequivocally refers to the evidence of steam at 62 degrees centigrade or thereby.  TK is trying to argue that this is incorrect.  He is wrong.  Steam is simply the evidence of evaporation at an accelerated rate due to increased energy applied to that water.  Under pressure steam is ALWAYS exploitable.  That was our point.  We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water. We ONLY measured the temperature of the element in conjunction with that water.  His multiple bases of objections are utterly spurious - offensive - and slanderous.  And it is always more than a little insulting to be obliged to answer them.  I am SATISFIED that it is this thread that has induced this horrible sickness in me.  Effectively TK's unadulterated hate has had it's desired consequence.

You are caught out in YET ANOTHER LIE, Ainslie. Either you LIE in your paper, or you LIE now, or ...most likely... both.

Can anyone see this image below, taken JUST NOW from the "paper" on Rossi's JNP?

[Magluvin]

Her "response" is just insane, period. I suppose she has no dictionary, since she thinks that Steam comes from a 64 degree heating element, and she now claims that she is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WATER TEMPERATURE and that they never measured the water temperature? What planet are we on now, Magsy?

Oh, that planet seemed to go super nova dude. Complete quasar man.

I caint handleit dude. I, welp, caint rightly say. pew.

It is amazing though.

But really, is there anything else to prove here? I guess the ball is(and has been) in her court.

Back to the fun zone.  ;]

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, this is in answer to picowatt's post.

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg2563.html#msg2563

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED
MAGS you may want to read it.

added
for those who want to know the objective and relevance of the test here's a transcript

We will then be able to prove that picowatt's repeated reference to this through multiple posts on both TK's hate thread and my own flamed and locked thread - were spurious and intended ONLY to harass me personally and to imply publicly that our measurements are erroneous.  It will belie his allegation that experts at LeCroy have validated that this measurement is correctly shown as a DC coupled value. And it will show the relevance of the coupling which picowatt has been anxiously attempting to deny.

[TinselKoala]

Hmm, what would it take to burn 5.9 MJ in 1.6 hours, for real? How much water boiling would "really" happen in that amount of time with that much energy used? 


Mags

Well, it's not too hard to figure it out, is it?

A Joule is a Watt-second. So if you are burning 5.9 megaJoules PER 1.6 hours, to get the AVERAGE POWER sustained for that time, you DIVIDE the number of Joules in 5.9 MJ by the number of seconds in 1.6 hours.

In "math language" that is

5,900,000 J / (1.6 hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute) = 5900000 Watt-seconds / (1.6 hours x 3600 seconds/hour)
== a bit over 1024 Watts, and all the unit dimensions work out correctly.

So that is a kiloWatt, continuously, for that 96 minutes.  An average electric single element hotplate is about 800 Watts, and will bring a quart of water to a full rolling boil in about 5 minutes or so. In thirty minutes... I don't think there would be any water left, and it would be pretty hot and humid in the closet.

But you could figure it out more precisely than that. If there were 0.85 liters (or 700 mL as claimed by her in another description of the same experiment) of water, and the container wasn't insulated so it takes twice the actual Joules for the same temp rise... Heck just call it a liter of water. So to go from 16 C ambient to 100 C takes 1000 grams x 84 degrees x 4.18 J/gm/deg, doubled for the thermal leakage, gives just a bit over 700 kJ. And the phase change to steam requires 2260 J/gm to turn the water at 100 C into steam at 100 C. So to vaporize that whole liter of water then would take a further 2260 J/gm x 1000 gm == 2,260,000 Joules. Double that for leakage to get 4,520,000 J and add the first 700 kJ to heat the water to 100 degrees and you STILL have some Joules left over, even at 50 percent efficiency due to heat leakage from the container.

In other words, even allowing for HALF THE HEAT to leak away and not affect the water at all, one could boil a full liter of water COMPLETELY TO STEAM AT 100 C and still only dissipate a little over 5 MJ.

What is even more surprising is that her battery pack contains over twice that amount of energy and could, if matters were arranged PROPERLY, boil away that much water quite easily. All you need is Ainslie's heating element, her batteries ... and a couple of stout jumper wires.