Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Farmhand]

While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this.  The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure.  While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test.  Therefore both tests are required.

Rosemary, if you say you will be demonstrating OU then that is claiming OU. How could you possibly say you will be demonstrating OU but not claiming to show OU. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Kinda like saying I will flap my wings and fly but I wont be claiming I flew.

You are either saying you will be showing OU, or you are not saying you will be showing OU. Which is it ? Please be clear.

Will you be showing OU ? Yes or No ?

Cheers

[TinselKoala]

@PW: Do it! If you enjoyed AP with a film camera... you will be amazed at the difference digital equipment has made in astrophotography.
The Canon 350 or 400, available used for 3 or 4 hundred dollars, then modded by removing the IR cut filter over the sensor and replacing it with high-transmission glass (which I haven't done on mine), makes an excellent color imager, fully controllable by the computer, captures scheduled and automated by the program Nebulosity (free trial download available) or the high-end MaximDL or other programs.... then there's no film to mess with, you see your results instantly... it's a lot more rewarding and much less frustrating than film, and the quality might even be better than an amateur can obtain with sensitized film and filters.
And the dedicated, cooled chip CCD astro imagers like the Parsec 8300M are just amazing. I usually operate the chip at 35 degrees C below ambient and take 10-minute subexposures of deepsky targets and may stack 20 or 30 of these to make an image. The color shot of the Lagoon nebula was taken over 3 separate nights, using different filters. I'm just learning this process and I've only made a few color composites this way; most of the color work is done with the Canon. But I can only do 2 minutes max per subexposure with the Canon before chip noise gets too bad. The Parsec can do 30 minutes no problem before the noise builds up, especially in winter, but that's more opportunity for jiggles and airplanes and such so I usually do ten minute subexposures max.

Most any scope these days that you'd be happy with will have a 2" focuser, and your old EPs will work fine, and the scope will probably come with an adapter for 1.25 inch anyway. My current favorite eyepiece is the Baader Hyperion Mark III zoom, which has a 2" barrel. I use it the most, that's for sure.

Here's one from the Canon....

[TinselKoala]

@Farmhand.... yep. And she is actually right about one thing... there is another power source, and we've identified where it is and how it works, and it has nothing to do with her silly unscientific "thesis" at all. It is the FUNCTION GENERATOR.

That hardly matters though. You can see that she's backing down from her claims and isn't even planning to do the definitive test of the current apparatus at all... she's going to be testing that other COP>17 device. And THAT device rests its claim on.... not only power measurements... but CALORIMETRY as well. In other words, she claims excess heat in the load over and above what the batteries supply.

And guess what... she might be right. The FG could be heating the load, since the COP>17 circuit is basically the same as this one except with (or is it without, Rosie?) a diode or two, and only has a single magic mosfet.

Note also that she says this:

I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past.  Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence.  And I've been well 'bitten'.

But it's not really the "evidence" that we here are denying, is it. After all, we've produced EXACTLY THE SAME EVIDENCE that she has. In further fact, it is SHE who is denying OUR evidence, isn't it. And has there ever been a less open "open source" claimant than our dear Rosie Poser?
So this counts as yet another false claim, distortion, misrepresentation of our work. It is the CONCLUSION based on the evidence that we deny, and the evidence for THAT is right under her nose in those dead batteries in her closet.

ETA: In fact, there should be no need at all for her to charge those batteries BEFORE testing. Since they never run down, they must have been fully charged when she put them away. So I think, as a requirement for her tests to be considered valid, that she NOT be allowed to charge those batteries conventionally at all. Ever.

[TinselKoala]

You know... CPUT is a university, with students. And students are sometimes bored and sometimes perform pranks. What better prank than to sneak in after hours and charge up the Ainslie batteries, without telling anyone but your mates over brews at the local?

More likely than zipons? Or not?

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

For what it is worth, here is your discussion about there being no power dissipated in a resistor if the "current and voltage are out of phase:"

I now see your Achilles Heel TK.  You have NO CLUE how to do power analysis.  And you have NO CLUE about phase shifts.  I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER.

It's from posting #2139 in your thread.

Here is what you said in posting #2157 on the same topic:

No MileHigh.  You'll need to do your own research here.  Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage.  The more out of phase - the less power dissipated.  TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase. 

My comment in post #2163:

Rosemary, the fact that you are not thinking, and are refusing to take me up on my challenge to you to start thinking, is really most unfortunate.  If you have current flow and there is a resistance associated with your load, then you have power dissipation.  The current and voltage will always be in phase for the resistive component of the load.  You are confusing the concept of capacitive or inductive reactance with resistance.

P = i-squared x R.   You know this formula.

You never admitted that you were wrong.  Will you admit it now?

There is a reason for raising this issue about admitting that you are wrong, and it's a follow up on the recent discussion in this thread.

If you start doing your testing in your thread and you make gross errors, you simply cannot gloss over them and not acknowledge them.   Nor can you be dismissive of them.  This will simply not work and it is not good science.

I am anticipating that you will make gross errors and they will have to be corrected.  Otherwise you will be creating another mess, another ambiguous total shambles that will be inconclusive.

So Rosemary, if you are going to be doing your own testing your best choice of action would be to start acknowledging and correcting your errors right now, before you get into the testing.

MileHigh