Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

Here it is again.  I'll try and get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all. 

And Guys,

Just a gentle reminder.  Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory.  Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement.  And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access. 

That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.

What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance.  The significance is this.  EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy.  And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Probably the simplest rebuttal to this is that the NERD team never put a simple analog ammeter or a digital multimeter set to measure current in series with the battery connection.  That clearly shows significant current flow indicating that the batteries are discharging.  This failure to make a simple measurement as a way of double-checking your DSO measurements is symbolic of the whole mess.

What you are doing is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering.  You are going to get a negative report back from the alleged lab.  Hopefully that will convince you and this will be all over.  But considering that you are a brick wall and stick to all of your uneducated, nonsensical, incorrect and irrational opinions about how the circuit actually works, one never knows.

[picowatt]

Probably the simplest rebuttal to this is that the NERD team never put a simple analog ammeter or a digital multimeter set to measure current in series with the battery connection.  That clearly shows significant current flow indicating that the batteries are discharging.  This failure to make a simple measurement as a way of double-checking your DSO measurements is symbolic of the whole mess.

What you are doing is an insult to the disciplines of science and engineering.  You are going to get a negative report back from the alleged lab.  Hopefully that will convince you and this will be all over.  But considering that you are a brick wall and stick to all of your uneducated, nonsensical, incorrect and irrational opinions about how the circuit actually works, one never knows.

MH,

Well said...

How would you interpret/define the claim of "COP=infinity"?

She seems to have backed away from the "batteries never run down" claim, but continues to state that tests will likely show that their capacity is exceeded.  But if the batteries discharge at all, how can a claim of COP=infinity be made?  What if the batteries die before I am finished extracting an "infinite" amount of energy?  What would the COP be then?

PW

[TinselKoala]

Do you see? She cannot make a single post without lying or insulting or threatening.

Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement.

On the contrary, Little Miss Mendacitor Mosfet, your "paper" makes many claims that are untrue and not supported by the data. The "5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours" nonsense is just one of them. "Bringing water to boil" is another one, when you did no such thing. You stuck an overheated resistor into a jug of water and observed some small bubbles. In other words, you lied in your paper and you are lying now.

And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access. 

It has been explained to you MANY TIMES that your measurement conditions are neither stringent, accurate, nor appropriate for the claims you are making. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. And you used a loaner oscilloscope that you used under false pretenses and which was withdrawn for that reason by the Tek representative that loaned it to you, which is why you no longer like Tektronix, even though many of their low-end scopes are superior to the bottomline LeCroy that you borrowed from Coast-to-Coast, that you damaged, and then had to purchase.
And anyone can RENT much more sophisticated test equipment for reasonable rates from many different metrology companies across the globe, so your "access" claim is also a lie. ANYONE can access those instruments, just as anyone can take a taxi from London to the Louvre if they want to.
Stringent conditions.... taping a thermocouple to a water heater element in a broom closet and recording by hand a few numbers now and then...... You are a joke. A lying joke, like a bad practical joke that makes a big mess that we know you'll never clean up.

That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.

(sic)
Well, little miss ANAMOLY, your own data prove that statement is also a lie, since the scopeshots from that trial show 1) a DECREASING BATTERY MEAN VOLTAGE DURING THE RUN  and 2) SIGNIFICANT CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY during the NON OSCILLATION phase of the cycle.
Therefore not only are you a bad speller, but also .... YOU LIE AGAIN, and your own data proves it.

NOTE PARTICULARLY Item 1, showing the strong CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY, and also note the total battery voltage.
And there are many more shots, even better than this one, that demonstrate the same phenomenon, which is not "anamolous" at all: it is normal circuit behaviour and is so well understood that it can be modelled, simulated, and instantiated in hardware in many ways, and there is nothing strange about it at all.

[picowatt]

TK,

The next time you perform tests on the NERD circuit, make sure you set the FG to its "extreme settings", as per her letter to the "reputable lab".  Surely, with your understanding of the operation of a FG, you must know what "extreme settings" means!

If I were a guitar player and the FG were a Marshall, I guess I'd rake my hand along the top of the knobs to put everything at "10".

PW

[picowatt]

Do you see? She cannot make a single post without lying or insulting or threatening.
On the contrary, Little Miss Mendacitor Mosfet, your "paper" makes many claims that are untrue and not supported by the data. The "5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours" nonsense is just one of them. "Bringing water to boil" is another one, when you did no such thing. You stuck an overheated resistor into a jug of water and observed some small bubbles. In other words, you lied in your paper and you are lying now. It has been explained to you MANY TIMES that your measurement conditions are neither stringent, accurate, nor appropriate for the claims you are making. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. And you used a loaner oscilloscope that you used under false pretenses and which was withdrawn for that reason by the Tek representative that loaned it to you, which is why you no longer like Tektronix, even though many of their low-end scopes are superior to the bottomline LeCroy that you borrowed from Coast-to-Coast, that you damaged, and then had to purchase.
And anyone can RENT much more sophisticated test equipment for reasonable rates from many different metrology companies across the globe, so your "access" claim is also a lie. ANYONE can access those instruments, just as anyone can take a taxi from London to the Louvre if they want to.
Stringent conditions.... taping a thermocouple to a water heater element in a broom closet and recording by hand a few numbers now and then...... You are a joke. A lying joke, like a bad practical joke that makes a big mess that we know you'll never clean up. (sic)
Well, little miss ANAMOLY, your own data prove that statement is also a lie, since the scopeshots from that trial show 1) a DECREASING BATTERY MEAN VOLTAGE DURING THE RUN  and 2) SIGNIFICANT CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY during the NON OSCILLATION phase of the cycle.
Therefore not only are you a bad speller, but also .... YOU LIE AGAIN, and your own data proves it.

NOTE PARTICULARLY Item 1, showing the strong CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE BATTERY, and also note the total battery voltage.
And there are many more shots, even better than this one, that demonstrate the same phenomenon, which is not "anamolous" at all: it is normal circuit behaviour and is so well understood that it can be modelled, simulated, and instantiated in hardware in many ways, and there is nothing strange about it at all.

TK,

At least Q1 was functioning properly in THAT 'scope shot!

PW