But OK, fine, if you are no longer claiming to have exceeded the battery capacity, that's OK with me, certainly.

So... you are no longer claiming Overunity performance... in fact according to you you NEVER have claimed OU performance, and COP>17, COP=INFINITY, COP exceeds INFINITY, and COP>INFINITY are not to be construed as meaning "overunity" or "free energy" when coming from Ainslie. OK, that's also OK with me.

And you have withdrawn your claim to the 3 prizes, and .99 has accepted your official withdrawal of your claim for that prize. Good. Now we just have two more official withdrawals to go.

And you don't intend to do battery capacity testing, you will only "prove" what anyone can prove: a negative mean power product shown on an oscilloscope. And you aren't going to use this "proof" for a claim of overunity or free energy, because you never claim that. OK, that's fine with me too.

And of course I have Tar Baby, right here, right now, ready to reproduce every measurement you can make, RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, though... I've demonstrated some things with Tar Baby that you claim are impossible, like current flowing through the FG. So you will need to show that NERD behaves differently somehow.... or you will have to acknowledge fully what we all know already: Tar Baby does indeed perform just like NERD in all significant respects.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:05:03 PM
GOOD.  We're agreed.  Then we're finished?  Here?  No further need of this thread?  Because then I can get the time required to concentrate on the work needed.

Rosie Pose.

NOTE WELL: AINSLIE  HERE OFFICIALLY AGREES that she has withdrawn her prize claims, that she makes NO claims whatsoever with regards to the NERD circuit, that she no longer claims EVER to have exceeded her battery capacity, and that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects.

However, this thread will continue as long as it's allowed to by our host, and since when Ainslie isn't bloviating the discussion is mostly technical, there is no reason for it to be closed, since work on Tar Baby continues. For example, I have not yet shown that the IRFPG50 is UNNECESSARY to produce the negative mean power product as claimed in Ainslie's papers... much cheaper units can be used just as well.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 05, 2012, 09:17:54 PM
TK

May I impose on you to reference DATES when you reference anything at all that I've written.  That way it can be read in context.  What is applicable to 2009 is not applicable to 2012.  You rely on keeping this hidden to spin your spin.

There has been some CONSIDERABLE progress since those early discussions.  And you're well aware of it.

Rosie Pose

I'm not hiding anything; the dates are there in the thread, which I linked to... and which reads like a carbon copy of the more recent threads here...except nobody there was foolish enough to want to build your kludge. Therefore, by saying I am hiding something, YOU LIE AGAIN.

May I  impose on you to CORRECT YOUR CALCULATION:

QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

That way we might not assume that you are such a TOTAL IDIOT that you don't know the difference between a Watt and a Joule and you can't even get your units right. Nor arrive at a correct answer just by pushing calculator buttons like a TOTAL IDIOT.
What progress have you made, when you are STILL making the basic math and conceptual errors now that you were making TEN YEARS AGO ??

That thread at Naked Scientists is a hoot and a half.

Start anywhere, but starting from post # 362 and reading down one finds some very interesting stuff. And no, I was just lurking, not posting.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350

I had to laugh at the part where she claimed a grasp of the "english language". There are several non-sentences and garbled grammar examples as well as misspelled words aplenty in that post of hers alone.

And note again the insults, the ad hominem attacks, and all the rest of what we have been putting up with here and now.

Considerable progress, indeed.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:12:31 PM
Ainslie, posting as witsend on Naked Scientists:   and a reply from Vern:        witsend:
witsend:
Vern:

I dont see any links in this post

Mags

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:59:48 PM
That thread at Naked Scientists is a hoot and a half.

Start anywhere, but starting from post # 362 and reading down one finds some very interesting stuff. And no, I was just lurking, not posting.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.350

I had to laugh at the part where she claimed a grasp of the "english language". There are several non-sentences and garbled grammar examples as well as misspelled words aplenty in that post of hers alone.

And note again the insults, the ad hominem attacks, and all the rest of what we have been putting up with here and now.

Considerable progress, indeed.

Ok now we have it

Mags