You are welcome, again.

Note that I use an insulated load cell, with the load resistor element immersed in 250 ml of mineral oil (specific heat 0.84), and the thermometer measures the temperature of the oil, not some unknown combination of oil and element temperature. Readings are generally taken after agitation. Thus, a measured temperature rise of the oil allows one to calculate fairly accurately the actual input of energy to the load cell. Further, by looking at the time it takes for the load cell to return to ambient after being warmed, I know the "leak rate" of the cell, so that I can refine the energy calculation even more.

Ainslie's temperature data, I believe, is seriously flawed due to her naive methodology. She has her load element dangling in mid-air with the temperature thermocouple attached directly to the metal housing, or perhaps only suspended near it at times, since she repeatedly talks about temperature "over" the load resistor. I don't trust the DC temperature calibration data for this reason. We haven't discussed the thermometry much up to this point, but this is another area where the experimental technique and data interpretation of the Ainslie team is seriously flawed.

TinselKoala you have done really great work showing the mechanics and the truth of Ms. Ainslie's apparatus.  You have applied great skill and care in your efforts.  I am sure that many people have learned about both circuits and good experiment techniques because of your efforts.

I believe that I have said before that I do not wish to berate anyone for making mistakes.   I credit Ms. Ainslie for conducting the demonstrations in June and August.  I see in those efforts an interest in getting to the truth.  I credit her for acknowledging the observed facts back in June and August and issuing her retraction in the face of those facts.  It's unfortunate that she has now done an about face on the facts.  The facts are in plain enough view, again thanks in no small part to efforts of people like you and Poynt99, but also due to Ms. Ainslee's own demonstrations, that Ms. Ainslie's present erroneous exclamations just aren't significant.

Do you see? I told you that she would not be responsive to a reasoned discussion of actual points. She persists in maintaining those fictions which her own data disprove. I will wager that she has not even watched the recordings of her farcical demonstrations.... and I will point out that the screenshots which Steve Weir guided them to make have never been posted publicly as they agreed to do... in fact Ainslie has never even mentioned them again.



There are "innocent" mistakes, and then there are deliberate falsifications. You may think that innocence deserves gentler treatment, and perhaps it does, but I reserve my right to berate people for the deliberate falsifications and cover-ups. And when "mistakes" persist for years after they have been pointed out and paths to correction defined.... then those who commit them become highly beratable, in my book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4

if you know all this, tell me then why keep wasting your time on this?
is it because you feel you need to prove something to somebody?
don't you see its a waste of time?
Just publishing the your test results would be sufficiënt.
you can use that precious time to work on real things.
but then again, what is real? how would you define real? it seems that real is simply electrical signals interpeted by the brain.
and then again, you would not recognize overunity if it bit you in the arse..

nope too busy making screenshots in stead of scopeshots, too busy running ancient and out dated routines...
it takes practice to break the habbits.

Quote from: Turbo on January 14, 2014, 03:59:44 AM
if you know all this, tell me then why keep wasting your time on this?
is it because you feel you need to prove something to somebody?
don't you see its a waste of time?
Just publishing the your test results would be sufficiënt.
you can use that precious time to work on real things.
but then again, what is real? how would you define real? it seems that real is simply electrical signals interpeted by the brain.
and then again, you would not recognize overunity if it bit you in the arse..

nope too busy making screenshots in stead of scopeshots, too busy running ancient and out dated routines...
it takes practice to break the habbits.

Why don't you tell me, newbie Turbo, just what you think "overunity" looks like, and why I might not recognize it if it bit me in the arse. Please be sure to include lots of references to your own work, and some demonstrations of "overunity", so I'll know what to look out for.

Also, you should check with the person who is forcing you to look at this thread, and ask him why he's not leaving you alone so you can work on your own "routines".