Rosemary,

Do you have any answers to my question posted in the test I did?

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/1740/

And I also would like to know what voltage your function generator was at when you got the 320mA current?

GL.

Quote from: Groundloop on May 11, 2012, 08:35:06 PM
Rosemary,

Do you have any answers to my question posted in the test I did?

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/1740/

And I also would like to know what voltage your function generator was at when you got the 320mA current?

GL.

Groundloop - I STILL do not understand why you even did that experiment.  We have discussed the 'voltage' evident across that Q1 as illustrated in that scope shot - AT LENGTH - in the LOCKED thread.  picowatt went to extraordinary lengths to explain that the zero reference indicated in the 'boxes' at the base of the screen ONLY related to their position with respect to the central 'horizontal' line.  I on the other hand said that the values in those boxes related to the chosen 'coupling' being AC or DC.  In effect the voltage evident over that transistor is shown as a DC coupled value when it should - in truth - be an AC coupled value.  TK is well aware of the argument.  He actively engaged.  picowatt's reference to the zero crossing was CORRECT.  My reference to the coupling was CORRECT.  But the point was made - by me - that the zero crossing, as indicated, is NOT appropriate to an AC coupled value that was actually REQUIRED.  The coupling at that channel is DC. 

It was subsequently explained to me that I COULD, in fact, have coupled that channel to AC.  In which case you most assuredly would be looking at something in the order of 4 Volts - as you, yourself - determined.   

What TK is trying to do here is to REVIVE that argument with the 'inference' that we had NOT dealt with this subject - AT LENGTH.  Then he would have used YOUR finding to suggest that you, a known and skilled member and participant - would PROVE that 12 volts enables that current flow.  Which would then 'spin' the story that our SCOPE VOLTAGE VALUE has been misrepresented. It WAS misrepresented.  It IS only 4 volts or thereby but it is 4 volts AC.  Again.  Our coupling on all our channels was DC.  And I will GLADLY demonstrate this when we get out demonstrations up and running.

What is sad is that you were engaged at all without first finding out - from me - our own stance on this.  The more so as you then also went to such extraordinary lengths to prove his point.  But I'm personally grateful for your efforts.  And as ever, you are essentially correct.  But you are also, correctly representing the zero crossing line.  Our scope shots representation of this is NOT correct.  But our REFERENCE to that channel 2 was to show evidence of NOT the voltage - but the frequency.  And that was NOT misrepresented.  Had the emphasis been on the VOLTAGE then I would indeed, have MISREPRESENTED that value. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

edited and added
Guys I edited 'shunt' to 'transistor'.  Fortunately Groundloop KNEW it was an error.  TK not so much.  He needed to spin this through a page and a half - for some reason best understood by himself.  And by ALL of us.  LOL.  Check it out.  It's lower down this page.  And a rather LOW reach with that feather duster.  Such a strange little man. 

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 11, 2012, 08:27:33 PM
And as for THIS contribution...

Not only is this post a FRAUDULENT misrepresentation of my work it is also another example of plagiarism.  Which DIAMETRICALLY opposes the declared 'rules of engagement' on this forum and any forum anywhere.   CRIMINAL in not one but two categories.  And STILL this kind of post is permitted.  With no applied moderation? 

His own level of communication is actually BEST illustrated in those further scheduled points which are ENTIRELY incomprehensible.

Regards,
Rosemary

So whats wrong with your WORD SALAD little miss SUPER TROLL ....."IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified) "QUOTE"  to hard to chew do you need some new dentures to replace the wooden ones ??

As for "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that term is used only in war in my opinion, if you want to play BATTLESHIP lets play, your always the one that needs a soap box and a loud speaker to "SHOOT" your mouth off.

The "ENTIRELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" part posted I'll re-post again  ....... as your such a "NITWIT" you cant even figure out how to do it yourself can you.


Rosemary's looking for any reason to get banned because of the request on re-testing .....

1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as "MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )

2) Any re-testing done will indicate a "ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her "THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.

3) Any re-testing "IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the "THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.

4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also destroyed the prior "COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the "COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model".

Guys - it seems that there is no end to the malice of this poor man.  It is my opinion that he's been bitten by the green eyed monster.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
So whats wrong with your WORD SALAD little miss SUPER TROLL ....."IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified) "QUOTE"  to hard to chew do you need some new dentures to replace the wooden ones ??

I think his requirement to refer to my work as a 'word salad' is based on his own rather challenged efforts in this regard.  I'm not sure that there's much wrong with my ability to express myself.  I may not have MileHigh's ease of prose - nor Groundloop's economy of expression.  But I am well able to put my point across.  But here again we have that infantile mind set.  Adults who resort to 'name calling'.  How ridiculous is that?  If he thinks this promotes him as a sane and reasonable citizen - then he's way off course.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMAs for "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that term is used only in war in my opinion, if you want to play BATTLESHIP lets play, your always the one that needs a soap box and a loud speaker to "SHOOT" your mouth off.

And here it is again.  The poor guy has obviously taken the trouble to look up the term 'engagement' and then assumed that it's only applied in the context of a war game?  LOL.  Which again speaks to that rather challenged aptitude in the use of language.  Quite apart from which we also have that 'infantile' mind set that requires OVERT abuse because he has no sense of common decency and even less of a sense of proportion.  'soap box' INDEED.  What nonsense.  And then .... 'shoot your mouth off'?  LOL  Is this meant to be 'adult'?  Or 'reasonable'?  Or is it just another rather retarded effort at wit with it's somewhat OBVIOUS reference to those 'rules of engagement'?  Please.  It is certainly less than interesting and considerably less than entertaining.  And it is yet more example of that criminal propensity to slander and traducement.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMThe "ENTIRELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" part posted I'll re-post again  ....... as your such a "NITWIT" you cant even figure out how to do it yourself can you.

LOL.  I'm now a 'nitwit'?  Golly.  That's rather impolite?  And cruel?  Like TK?      This is again rather more amusing than I think was intended.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMRosemary's looking for any reason to get banned because of the request on re-testing ...

Guys this is patently nonsense.  IF I was looking to get banned I'd be using terms like 'nitwit' and 'shoot your mouth off' and 'shut up' and 'you idiot' and on and on and on.  Because rest assured if I were to do so then I WOULD be banned.  I needs must comply to forum guidelines.  But FTC - NOT SO MUCH.  Nor TK for that matter.   

continued/...

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as "MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )

We most assuredly have been offered our own moderated thread.  It may be that I'll need to send a video to STEFAN in advance of that - to PROVE certain claims of ours - BUT IT MOST CERTAINLY has been contracted.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM2) Any re-testing done will indicate a "ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her "THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.

Here guys, I'm up against it.  AGAIN.  I have NO idea of his point.  I would LOVE to see a thesis made 'mute' to its death' based on prior testing and evaluation?  Where?  What?  Which?  Why?  I have NO idea of his point.  Except that I'm to assume that a thesis 'talks'- and then talks itself 'to death' - LOL.  How odd?  Hugely confusing imagery.  But by the same token - hugely amusing. 

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM3) Any re-testing "IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the "THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.

Again.  Hysterically confusing.  And utterly meaningless.  Perhaps he can ask picowatt to put his point across for him - AGAIN.  FTC - you need someone to help you.  I see you are trying to say SOMETHING.  I'm not sure what?

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PM4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also destroyed the prior "COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the "COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.

What 'device is gone'?  What shunt?  What has this got to do with anything at all?  What evidence have I removed related to my COP>17 claim?  This level of communication is that fraught that it beggars belief.  It is ENTIRELY illogical.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 11, 2012, 09:45:31 PMITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model".

It certainly IS about the thesis.  That has ALWAYS been the theme of all our tests.  But it is NOT MY thesis.  It is a thesis that has been advanced by those with CONSIDERABLY more authority than any that I would EVER dare to pretend.  Guys.  I honestly think that FTC is almost insanely jealous of our claim.  And he is STILL hoping to usurp this as his own.  It really is rather sad.  Really, really sad. 

Regards,
Rosemary