Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I have NEVER stated anywhere EVER - that we dissipate 5 megajoules of power during any test period.  Dear God.  This is SPIN gone WILD.

Rosemary

ADDED

We most certainly dissipated ABOUT 5 megajoules OVER that entire test period.  We omit reference to this in our paper because the quantity of water was not established.

Emphasis in the original.
Can anyone decode this Ains-lie? Words mean whatever Ainslie wants them to mean at the time she utters them, but usually she at least waits for an intervening post or two before she blatantly contradicts herself Yet Again.

It appears she is making some distinction between "dissipating about 5 MJ OVER that period" and " we dissipate 5 MJ of power DURING" a test period.

The claim is perfectly clear, though, and the water quantity IS mentioned (inaccurately) and the Water Temperature is referred to AS A MEASUREMENT, and it's perfectly clear what is meant and that the 5.9 megaJoule claim, OVER or DURING either one,  is a lie:

[TinselKoala]

Note the screenshot below from the CURRENT EDITION POSTED ON HER NEW FORUM.

This is the most recent "edit" that I can find, and the image was made at about 8:30 am CDT on July 11, 2012, with my emphasis added.

Note that the Water Quantity IS INDEED SPECIFIED as "about" 0.85 L.  When two significant digits of a measurement are cited along with the term "about", usually the "about" uncertainty is in the THIRD least significant digit... that is, in a scientific report "about 0.85 L" would mean somewhere between 0.845 L and 0.855 L. Otherwise the figure would have been given as "about 0.84" or "about 0.86" and so on.

However in other places Ainslie has listed this same quantity of water in this same trial as being 700 mL.  "About" indeed.

Note also that the WATER TEMPERATURE and the TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER are given in two places. Yet Ainslie tells us now that the water temperature was never measured.

The lies and inconsistencies are rampant and perpetual and she perpetrates new ones every day, it seems. And it also appears that she herself isn't even all that familiar with what is in the "paper" that she keeps "citing" and posting links to. Maybe she should READ the document, instead of just looking at the shapes of the words and the pretty Etch-a-Sketch scopeshots... that reveal so much more than she ever intended to reveal.

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.

1: Steam does not occur at a water temperature of 62 degrees C.

2. Anyone can see that the CURRENT EDIT of the "paper" posted on her new forum refers to the WATER TEMPERATURE several times. If this WATER TEMPERATURE was NOT MEASURED, as Ainslie now CORRECTLY states... then the ENTIRE PAPER MUST BE RETRACTED, since a major section of it has to do with "taking water to boil" when no such thing was done and the WATER TEMPERATURE WAS NOT EVEN MONITORED. Yet she has the absolute gall to put a number on the quantity of energy dissipated "during" or "over" that trial period.

3: Blaming me and/or this thread for your "horrible sickness" Ainslie... is a low blow, cowardly and mendacious as usual. I'll be sure to mention YOUR NAME and YOUR FORUM the next time my cardiologist is wondering why my blood pressure is so very dangerously high that I  might just die of a stroke at any instant, and it will be AINSLIE'S FAULT.
Won't it.

And WHEN will you learn to put your apostrophes in the right place? "IT'S" is the contraction of "IT IS" or sometimes "IT HAS". "ITS" with NO APOSTROPHE is the possessive. You make this basic grammar error over and over, Ainslie. LEARN SOMETHING BASIC for a change, and fill in one of those yawning gaps in your autodidacticity: here is a perfect opportunity.

[picowatt]

TK,

When you have a moment take a look at FIG5.

The only capture that demonstrates a correctly wired or functioning Q1 is FIG5.  However, this capture has a few "issues" as well.

During the positive portion of the FG cycle, there appears to be close to 2 amps flowing as per the CSR.

Note the indicated battery voltage during that same portion of the cycle.  From the text, all six batteries were used for this test, so Vbatt should be 72 volts or so.  During the FG HI period, Vbatt is around 50 volts.  It is not reasonable to expect that 6 series connected lead acid batteries of the size used would drop 22 volts with a 2 amp load.

However, if 2 amps were flowing thru Rload as indicated, Rload would drop 22 volts (2AX11R=22V).  Therefore, at the drain side of Rload, one would expect to see 50 volts (72V-22V=50V).

So, either less than 6 batteries were used for the test related to FIG5, the battery path had a high DC resistance (poor connection, high battery internal resistance) or, and more likely, the 'scope probe position used to indicate Vbatt was actually on the MOSFET drain side of Rload.

Anyway, have a look at FIG5.

If indeed 6 well connected and healthy 12 volt batteries were used during the FIG5 test, the indicated voltages for Vbatt appear to be more consistent with "Channel 2" being connected to the drain side of Rload and not the battery side of Rload as we are lead to believe.

PW

[poynt99]

Emphasis in the original.
Can anyone decode this Ains-lie? Words mean whatever Ainslie wants them to mean at the time she utters them, but usually she at least waits for an intervening post or two before she blatantly contradicts herself Yet Again.

It appears she is making some distinction between "dissipating about 5 MJ OVER that period" and " we dissipate 5 MJ of power DURING" a test period.

The claim is perfectly clear, though, and the water quantity IS mentioned (inaccurately) and the Water Temperature is referred to AS A MEASUREMENT, and it's perfectly clear what is meant and that the 5.9 megaJoule claim, OVER or DURING either one,  is a lie:

One possibility might be that there were several tests run that day or over several days, and the 5.9MJ is quoting the total energy used over that time period, vs. what was used for each separate test run?

[picowatt]

One possibility might be that there were several tests run that day or over several days, and the 5.9MJ is quoting the total energy used over that time period, vs. what was used for each separate test run?

.99

"over the entire 1.6 hour test period about 5 904 000 joules were dissipated" sure sounds like she is stating a 1.6 hour period, and taken in context, also sounds like she is discussing only Test 3.

Earlier in that same paragraph, while discussing Test 3, she also states "These negative values remained throughout the 1.6 hour test period".

PW