Ainslie describes that precision calorimetric test in a little more detail in her blog.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html

Like I said before, I could make measurements with a piece of string and a lump of modelling clay and they would still be better than anything Ainslie has reported. Compare the data precision, the methodology,  and the values given in the two blog posts, with what they morphed into for the famous 25.6 million Joules calculation which I have quoted many times and which she STILL has not corrected and retracted.

And I am being accused of "Claiming" to use a potentiometer whose inductance I haven't given.

I am generally reluctant to resort to Scriptural references... but......

Matthew 7:3-5.


(And of course also note that the CVR traces in the scope shots in those blog posts above (click through the link to see them on the blog page) CLEARLY SHOW significant current flowing during the so-called "ON" stage of the signal --ETA The NON oscillation phase -- , and CLEARLY SHOW that a bipolar pulse is being delivered from the FG to the circuit.)

Even in that blog post, before morphing, she misrepresents the data. Observe:

QuoteThis was an exciting test.  We took water to boil 0.7 litres. There was absolutely NO evident discharge of energy from the supply.  And if you look closely you'll see that during the 'on' time of the duty cycle the voltage across the shunt was only ever 'fractionally' above zero - indicating that the current flow from the battery during the on time was next to nothing.

Well, I do look closely, and this is what I see: A voltage across the "shunt" during the "ON" time... the positive FG pulse --- that looks like about 80 mV positive to me. The zero baseline is offset by 20 mV above the center graticle line and the middle of the fuzz on the CVR trace during the ON period is about 100 mV above the graticle marker, so that looks like about 80 mV or so to me. With a 0.25 Ohm CVR this gives I = V/R == 0.08/0.25 == about 320 milliAmps .... hardly "fractionally above zero" and in fact enough to provide significant load heating indeed. 320 milliAmps at 62 "something" volts is nearly 20 Watts that is going somewhere. Anybody want to guess where?

The scopeshot from the blogpost:

Ainslie prevaricated,

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:06:17 AM
My dear PhiChaser

Try and catch up with the facts.  I have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes.  I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes.  The current that is INDUCED by the function generator is from its applied voltage at the GATES of the those MOSFETS.  It is NOT FROM that function generator as YOU, PICOWATT, MILEHIGH and TK erroneously suppose.

And WHAT new math do you keep referring to - in your rather weak efforts at joining in this 'tar Rosemary' thread?  We all know you're anxious to 'join in' with what you 'assume' is a majority opinion.  In FACT you are sharing a minority opinion with 4 heavy weight OU disclaimants.  And that STILL makes you nothing but a bully while they're seasoned anti OU campaigners.

Rosie Pose

But... here, Rosie Prevaricator says, in a reply to picowatt:

QuoteLet's first deal with some pertinent issues.  What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'.

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321034/#msg321034

Maybe that's why everyone thinks Ainslie doesn't believe that a function generator is able to pass current. It's because she SAYS IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, she knows that it is,  and she only began prevaricating around that position AFTER I demonstrated that it is indeed able to do so.

And note again the  misuse of the term "INDUCTION". The voltage applied to the gate of a mosfet ... a FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR... does not turn that mosfet on by virtue of electromagnetic induction and the resulting current flow is related to EM induction only because the FEEDBACK OSCILLATIONS are produced by it. It has nothing to do with the way Ainslie is misusing the term above.

Try and catch up with the facts, will you?   

(And of course everyone EXCEPT thickheaded stubborn willfully ignorant Rosemary Ainslie knows that the new math PhiChaser wants to see is the SAME NEW MATH that I and everyone else want to see... the corrected calculations in the 2 quotations where AINSLIE claims to have exceeded battery capacity. And she knows that is what is meant too, but she simply cannot do it because she doesn't even understand where and what her mistakes are.)

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 08, 2012, 01:07:53 PM

"Maybe the psychic energy does flow through my hands..."


http://youtu.be/qUxWdIQVT_c?t=1m10s

But grasshopper, you must become one with the function generator...

Welcome to this thread Mrsean2K!

PW