Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

In my opinion, if you are talking about AC the kettle or the light, the electrons moving back and forth in the wire from the plug outlet probably never reach the device being powered. Just back and forth, from one point to another. Many of the electrons that are in the filament of the bulb being powered probably never leave the filament, just back and forth or at rest.

Just because electrons seem to move slow, doesnt mean there isnt any power behind it. Like 1 molecule of water, then fill an empty ocean with them. Even what would look like a relatively slow looking wave can contain immense power.

Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that the reaction at the other end of the conductor cant possibly seem instantaneous when pressure is applied to the beginning of that wire.

Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that, what seem to be large value, big numbers cannot be applied to a record of their flow. Tiny buggers and a whole lot of them.

Ya cant let what seems to be slow, have any meaning in what can be done at that density and speed. What seems slow is really like an asteroid flying from solar system to solar system at speeds we can only dream of, if put to scale. imagine the energy it would take to do that.

But electrons dont always have to seem slow. Consider them in a vacuum, say a CRT(television picture tube), the speed of the electrons from the cathode guns to the anode screen at the front of the tube I would say is quite fast. So really slow from the circuit board to the cathode, then full charge from the cathode through the tubes vacuum to the positively charged screen, and then slow again once in the conductor circuit.

MaGs

Golly Magsy, That's a new take.  Indeed.  We can all of us assume that the speed of light itself is relative.  Good point.  I'm sure you're right.  The trouble is that you can't measure a speculated velocity.  One can only measure ACTUAL velocity.  And our chemists and particle physicists have done this.  And that's the speed.  Take it or leave it.  Think what you like about it.  It's still a paradox.  Sadly.  And IF there's pressures somewhere - somehow - then those pressures are WHAT?  Nothing?  A field?  And then?  A field of WHAT?  A force exerted by the vacuum? So?  What's that vacuum?  A place that exerts a force?  It explains NOTHING - sadly.  And it's that 'nothing' that you guys have not been able to explain.  The best you can manage is 'holes' - which in turn makes no kind of logical sense AT ALL.

Kindest regards Magsy,
Rosie

[picowatt]

INDEED I cannot.  Nor will I.  I no longer bother with those videos of yours TK.  I prefer to be taught by articulate and intelligent members such as Poynty or Groundloop - or even directly from our Greats.  You are utterly INCAPABLE of teaching anything at all. 

Rosie Pose

This is great!  There is much .99 and GL can teach you.  The question is, however, will you learn?

If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?

Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?

Just curious...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is great!  There is much .99 and GL can teach you.  The question is, however, will you learn?

If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?

Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?

Just curious...

The difference between Poynty and Groundloop is that they're both highly intelligent and in their own fields - frankly - I think they're geniuses.  I have not and will not comment on their arguments until I hear them.  Right now I have NOT heard them.  And IF they're right - then we will NEVER be able to extend the capacity of a battery beyond its watt hour rating.  No-one will.  We have done those experiments - TO DEATH.  We know what the outcome will be - certainly as it relates to the COP>17 test.  Not yet on our NERD circuit.  So.  Whatever argument is finally USED - then it has to incorporate that gain.  Short of this their arguments will be void.  BUT their knowledge of electronics will ALWAYS be far in excess of my own.  Anyone's is.  But in my view their talents are the acme of electronics and circuitry.  And while I have very little of that knowledge I have I have a fair understanding of pure physics.  Which is the subject of that apparatus.  And that knowledge of the fundamentals of physics is also the foundation for my own argument.  You guys can scoff it as long as you dare.  It's a required process to the introduction of new paradigm shifts.  And I'm perfectly happy that I'm the brunt.  But history reverses - and we'll see what happens when I finally do those demonstrations.

And regarding both Groundloop and Poynty -  they both have the further merit of being able to write a post without insulting the technology or myself.  That far exceeds your own competence picowatt - and CERTAINLY it exceeds TK's.  He can't post without including gratuitous insults.  But that's because he's intellectually constrained by his GER... as a measure of ...dare I say it... his pickle?  Something like that.  I've never quite got my head around it.  They both seem somewhat incidental and irrelevant.  Frankly I get the distinct impression that he's trying to make us think that they're measurable.  Golly.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

The difference between Poynty and Groundloop is that they're both highly intelligent and in their own fields - frankly - I think they're geniuses.  I have not and will not comment on their arguments until I hear them.  Right now I have NOT heard them.  And IF they're right - then we will NEVER be able to extend the capacity of a battery beyond its watt hour rating.  No-one will.  We have done those experiments - TO DEATH.  We know what the outcome will be - certainly as it relates to the COP>17 test.  Not yet on our NERD circuit.  So.  Whatever argument is finally USED - then it has to incorporate that gain.  Short of this their arguments will be void.  BUT their knowledge of electronics will ALWAYS be far in excess of my own.  Anyone's is.  But in my view their talents are the acme of electronics and circuitry.  And while I have very little of that knowledge I have I have a fair understanding of pure physics.  Which is the subject of that apparatus.  And that knowledge of the fundamentals of physics is also the foundation for my own argument.  You guys can scoff it as long as you dare.  It's a required process to the introduction of new paradigm shifts.  And I'm perfectly happy that I'm the brunt.  But history reverses - and we'll see what happens when I finally do those demonstrations.

And regarding both Groundloop and Poynty -  they both have the further merit of being able to write a post without insulting the technology or myself.  That far exceeds your own competence picowatt - and CERTAINLY it exceeds TK's.  He can't post without including gratuitous insults.  But that's because he's intellectually constrained by his GER... as a measure of ...dare I say it... his pickle?  Something like that.  I've never quite got my head around it.  They both seem somewhat incidental and irrelevant.  Frankly I get the distinct impression that he's trying to make us think that they're measurable.  Golly.

Rosie Pose

You will find that if you go back and read your locked thread, it was YOU that first denigrted MY abilities when I asked you about Q1.  You wanted to argue that I was not even qualified to read your 'scope.  But no matter. 

I will repeat my previous post for you, as again you provide no answers...



"This is great!  There is much .99 and GL can teach you.  The question is, however, will you learn?

If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?

Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?

Just curious..."

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear picowatt - YOU need to reread that thread and your own contributions.  And you really need to learn the trick of saying something new.  That is if you expect anyone at all to respect your opinions.

Rosie Pose