Testing the TK Tar Baby

[fuzzytomcat]

Rosemary the "SUPER TROLL" again has purposefully misinterpreted and misrepresented the facts .....

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 )

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.

Your a liar and have no PROOF and can't provide any that's why the continued "WORD SALAD" and "BLOVIATING" we see from you Rosemary the SUPER TROLL in every single posting .... wheres that required testing at ??

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.

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.

Here we see more of Rosemary the SUPER TROLLS ADDICTION TO DENIAL of the facts which has been proven that she made a fraudulent YouTube video with a schematic shown in the video but not of the device demonstrated in the video, two documents sent to accredited journals or magazines for peer review and possible publication with two different schematics shown and authors that had nothing to do with the testing and evaluation the entire presentation and documentation for the claim of proof was not done in any known scientific method that could ever be reproduced for verification in a amateur or professional manner. The THESIS is now a DOA document submission but good enough to be excepted to the trash can.

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.

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?

Here is more redirection of the facts on Rosemary the SUPER TROLLS inability of doing any testing or evaluation of anything new  ..... in the past three threads here at OverUnity you have been requested to do some kind of testing countless times by other members and Stefan and HAVE NOT PROVIDED ONE THING NEW SINCE JULY 2011, nothing, nada, zip, zero !!! Stefan even has asked in these three threads eleven times ..... WHATS the problem ??

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.

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.

Here you see more WORD SALAD from Rosemary the SUPER TROLL acting stupid or dumb not knowing whats being typed in plain view by my belief of her DESTROYING the DEVICE that she has used for the claim, testing and evaluation of a COP>INFINITY. Then you see the comment of what shunt this is a expert not knowing that the device she invented only has one Rshunt resistor shown on every schematic that the SUPER TROLL refers to. The easy proof of HER still having the COP>INFINITY device would be to grab the digital camera take a picture and record the resistor information then post it here on the forum to "PROVE" me wrong that the device still exists ...... anyone see a NEW image or photo of a .25 ohm shunt wire wound resistor ( 1 ohm 10 watt x4 ) or the manufacture information and part number for the uh (micro henry) value ...... no one will.


I'd offer the SUPER TROLL some scissors to cut a hole in those knickers so she could possibly see out ..... but than again I don't know if in South Africa they use such things under their loin cloths they wear. 

Where is that required testing Rosemary the SUPER TROLL .... have you started ??  If not when are you going to ?? 

[Groundloop]

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 shunt 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

Rosemary,

Thank you for the answer. I understand that your function generator output voltage was close to 4 Volt and that
was the reason for the low 320mA current through the switch. This I also have tested and did find the same result
at that low voltage. I did build my setup to have something to test on. And one has to start somewhere. So I decided
to start with the ON cycle to see if the math holds true. And it did. So next test will be connecting my function generator
and actually measure how much current that is going to or from the function generator when the circuit runs.

GL.

[TinselKoala]

I keep revisiting this "calculation" because it is so very hilarious. Ainslie refuses to correct it, instead preferring simply to admit that it is "a tad out".
Come, let us dissect it and see what a "tad" is in South African English. It is much larger than a Texan "tad", that is for sure.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. 

This is the definition of the calorie, no problem here, since it's just parroted from a text.

We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.

Have we? But when the experiment was reported Ainslie said " This was an exciting test.  We took water to boil 0.7 litres. " (Blog post #117). So let's use 700 mL in our calculation.

We ran that test for 90 minutes.

Did we? Normally when reporting time-temperature data one records the time it took to arrive at that temperature, and since Ainslie proceeds to attempt to calculate that way, we are justified in taking 90 minutes as the time it took to raise the 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C using a submerged heating element. HOWEVER... that is not how the experiment was actually performed, is it. " It rose from 66.9 degrees C to it's (sic) final temperature of 240 degrees C.  That's when I put it in water.  And then it took the water up to 80 degrees centigrade where it pretty well stabilised. " (Blog post #117). And this temperature is not actually the water temperature but the temperature of the heating element, isn't it, because the thermocouple is still mounted to the element. No matter... let's continue as if it took 90 minutes to get all the water to 104 degrees as Ainslie implies with the rest of the calculation. But does " a little over 80" mean 82? "The water temperature then stabilsed (sic) after an hour or so - at a little over 80 degrees centigrade." (Blog post #117).

Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.

Did we? But.... any child with a calculator could tell you that 82 plus 20 is not 104. (An error of 2 percent is a Texan "tad".) And that water at sea level atmospheric pressure boils at 100 C and you CANNOT get it hotter than that without pressurizing it. And.... "Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think.  It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles. And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory." is how it was reported at the time the experiment was done. (Blog post #118). And of course the 104 degrees is the temperature of the element not the water. And it has small bubbles but no sound of boiling. Ho. Hum. Yawn.

We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.

No, "Joules" is NOT equal to one watt per second. Most definitely not, and the rest of the "calculation" that Ainslie commits illustrates just why the terms Watt and Joule are NOT interchangeable and mean different things. A QUANTITY is NOT A RATE.

So.  Do the math.

This is so overweeningly arrogant and ignorant that I am flabbergasted every time she uses the phrase, because nearly every time she does so, she errs in one way or another. MOST ESPECIALLY in this post of hers right here, but many times elsewhere as well.

4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second

Stop right there. There are NO SECONDS, no time terms in the first part of the equation. The correct result, using the correct water volume, is  4.18 x 700 x 66 = 193,116 JOULES. It took that much ENERGY to raise the water temperature (at least, but, if the test was correctly done, not much more).

248 292 Joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.

Ha ha again. Polly Parrot parrots her calculator numbers without understanding what she is doing.  Aren't there 60 seconds in a minute? So, you must include that factor of 60 as well, which would correct that tiny part of the "calculation" anyway. 248292 "Joules per second" x 60 seconds per minute x 90 minutes = 1,340,776,800 Joules. But even Ainslie couldn't swallow that whopper, so she left out the 60 seconds per minute part.

Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. 

Do I have that? Let's see. In the first place, isn't the "water" already "at" 82 degrees C? So really "we" are only raising it another "104" - 82 = 22 degrees, over a timespan of ten minutes. So, 4.18 J/gram/degree x 700 g x 22 degrees is 64,372 JOULES and again no time term YET. Unless you want the average power during that time period; then you divide the JOULES by the SECONDS to arrive at WATTS. So for that ten minutes where 64,372 Joules are dissipated, the average power is 64,372/(60 seconds per minute x 10 minutes) or about 107 JOULES PER SECOND, aka Watts, an entirely plausible number IF the measurements are correct (unlikely) and the experimental procedures are correct (definitely not).

Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

And it is literally dishonest to do so, because for one thing even if the numbers themselves ARE correct you are adding the same quantity twice (the energy it took to go from 16 to 82 degrees, which got included in BOTH the bogus calcs above when it only belongs in the first one.) So the correct number of Joules expended was most definitely NOT 25.6 million Joules in 90 minutes. What is the power level required to dissipate 25 megaJoules in 90 minutes? Since a Watt is a Joule PER SECOND, the average power needed TO ARRIVE AT AINSLIE's NUMBERS, must be 25,600,000 Joules DIVIDED BY (60 seconds per minute x 90 minutes) ==  nearly FIVE KILOWATTS. And since Ainslie neither understands the units nor the math, she allows that ridiculous result --- 25.6 megaJoules dissipated in  90 minutes -- to stand uncorrected and unquestioned. Unquestioned, that is, by those who don't take her advice and don't actually DO THE MATH. The correct number of Joules expended was, using the normal assumptions of time-temperature test protocols, 193,116 Joules for the first 80 minutes and 64,372 Joules for the last 10 minutes, and that equals 257488 Joules. Only. And if that number of Joules was dissipated in 90 minutes, that gives an average power of just under 50 Watts. Unremarkable and well within the battery's capacity of over 10 megaJoules. But because of the way the experiment ACTUALLY was done, if one can believe Ainslie's first report of it... the true dissipation is likely much less. But there is no way to know without being able to examine the RAW DATA, which Ainslie has never shown to anyone, other than having her notebook present a cameo appearance with no data,  in a photograph of her 1-mosfet apparatus. The closest we get to raw data is her blog posting on the same day of the experiment or shortly thereafter, along with the scope traces she posts.

All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules.

Is it? Or are they really 60 A-H batteries, which seems to be the case today? No matter, let's stick with the 40 figure -- perhaps two thirds of their true capacity -- that Ainslie used to get 10 megaJoules capacity. So.... we used about a quarter of a megaJoule in our 90 minute test... and the battery contains 10 megaJoules when fully charged. This means that the battery could do about 10,000,000 / 250,000 or FORTY such tests before becoming exhausted.

In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

FALSE.

And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.

Yes, that is right. The evidence is conclusive that Ainslie cannot calculate, making multiple arithmetic, algebraic and conceptual errors, does not check her work, and makes outrageous unsupported claims based on nothing more than her ERRORS.

Those batteries have outperformed.

FALSE.

They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

And of course, finally, the measurement of "OVER 12 volts EACH" is not an indication of state of charge at all and does not support the claim at all.

So.. it appears that a SA "tad" is indeed larger than a Texan "tad"... by quite a bit.

[TinselKoala]

From Blog Post # 117: Scope shots showing current passing through mosfets. Note that the amount of current in the last screen is clearly less than in the second screen.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html

Note also the "SCRN" sequence numbers of the images, as given by Ainslie. These are in the order she presented them on the blog page ... but look at the timestamps in the bottom right corner of each shot.

It's clear that the current is decreasing over the timespan of the experiment when the shots are looked at in chronological order ... until finally... well, see the next post's image from Blog Post 118.

[TinselKoala]

And now... the final screen shot from that experiment, included in Blog Post 118.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/118-this-was-final-step-to-take-it-to.html

What happened to the current? The gate pulse is still 12 volts positive, as far as I can determine with the 50 volts per division channel setting. (facepalm)

BUT THERE IS NO CURRENT EVIDENT IN THE CVR TRACE during those +12 volt gate drive portions.Compare to the middle picture in the last post from Blog 117.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CURRENT? WHY is a mosfet, getting +10 or +12 volts at its gate, NOT TURNING ON and passing measureable current? Why has the current level decreased over the span of this experiment?

(Sorry, this is the resolution that she seems to have posted this shot with. It can be seen at better resolution on the blog page linked above, where it is easily seen that no current is indicated during the +12 volt gate signal periods.)


And by the way, Ains-liar, ... I have NEVER signed my name as "Leon".
I have occasionally quoted a line from one of my favorite movies, ADDRESSED to Leon.... by analogy TO AINSLIE HERSELF.
So if she wants to call me by her hallucination of my signature, then I will feel free to call her Polly Parrot, because once again, whenever she does call me LEON, she is parroting back something that she simply does not understand. She is looking at the finger, instead of where the finger is POINTING.... which is at herself.