Testing the TK Tar Baby

[mrsean2k]

@gmeast

Doesn't the fact that your calculation of power was hopelessly flawed wrt allowing for the duty cycle originally give you any pause for thought that your calculations and / or methods are flawed in some other way?

[picowatt]

You guys can't even do a good job of attempting to discredit someone.  If you use 1 watt of electrical power to supply a circuit that produces 1.5 watts (equivalent) of heat, then it's a winner.  The excess power doesn't have to come in the form of electrical components at all.  Trying to "close the loop" with a matching type of power is probably impossible in a legitimate system.


So, this thread is the height of social acceptance for you guys.  As I had said before, you are all like a bunch of 5th graders exhibiting nothing more than a 'feeding frenzy, pack mentality'.  I'll have the last laugh.

gmeast,

As an alternate input power measurement, you might consider temporarily replacing your battery(s) with a decent sized capacitor and connecting your precision supply to the cap.  Your supply will then indicate the amount of DC current at a given DC voltage that your circuit is drawing.  Use an electrolytic cap with a small ceramic cap in parallel, both of the proper voltage rating.

Just a suggestion... 

PW

[TinselKoala]

Have you figured out yet that Ainslie is a liar, GMEAST? Got anything like her reported results yet? COP >17, batteries that do not discharge, boiling water, dissipating 5.9 megaJoules in 45 minutes? Scope traces that indicate 12 volts to a mosfet gate but ZERO current? Can you do that, with a working mosfet and a correctly wired circuit? I don't think so, but you could always TRY to PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot, though.

No, of course you don't have anything like her reported results. Nobody does, nobody ever did, not even her. She's been stringing you along, and you still haven't been able to refute a single thing we've poynted out to you.

Your double application of the duty cycle in your calculations, repeated several times and even defended by you and Ainslie, indicates that you may know how to punch a calculator but you don't really understand what you are doing. The fact that you _think_ you understand, while demonstrating that you do not, is another prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

[TinselKoala]

You guys can't even do a good job of attempting to discredit someone.  If you use 1 watt of electrical power to supply a circuit that produces 1.5 watts (equivalent) of heat, then it's a winner.  The excess power doesn't have to come in the form of electrical components at all.  Trying to "close the loop" with a matching type of power is probably impossible in a legitimate system.


So, this thread is the height of social acceptance for you guys.  As I had said before, you are all like a bunch of 5th graders exhibiting nothing more than a 'feeding frenzy, pack mentality'.  I'll have the last laugh.

You quoted me but you did not refute me.  Just WHEN will you be having this "last laugh" of yours? Your calorimetry is a nice effort for a rank amateur, but hopelessly flawed. The "fact" that you are getting an "overunity" result should indicate to you that there is something wrong with your methodology and/or your measurements, NOT that you have broken the laws of reality. You should be doing everything in your power to refute your own results, because that is how real science is done. You have already noticed that, as your measurements and technique get better, your "overunity" result diminishes, and now it's so small that it can easily be attributed to noise in your experiment, measurement error, calibration problems. That in itself should tell you something. But you are blinded by your own brilliance and you have been bamboozled by the Ainslie personality phenomenon. Laugh away, Gmeast.... I certainly am laughing too. But not with you---- rather, I laugh AT you, for being such a hopeful fool that you have fooled yourself.

AND LEARN THE MEANING OF SIGNIFICANT DIGITS. When you cite results to the hundred thousandth or a millionth of a Watt, we can know one thing for sure about your result : the numbers are wrong. YOU CANNOT HAVE MORE PRECISION IN YOUR RESULT THAN THE LEAST PRECISE VALUE THAT GOES INTO THE CALCULATION. Claiming otherwise is.... an error.

[TinselKoala]

Ah, Ainslie is displaying her superb research and investigative skills once again, for all the world to see. What a vile and hateful female, full of bile and bitter gall she is. All of which might be tolerable if she were only right about something, once in a while.

Watch out, Mookie, the big bad Ainslie wench is coming to get...... someone she thinks might be you.

I swear, this couldn't be more hilarious if it were on daytime television.