Testing the TK Tar Baby

TinselKoala · May 12, 2012, 01:19:12 PM

I laugh at you, Ainslie.

Your "theoretical understanding" of your topic has produced what? A device which sits there and makes pretty colored lines on an expensive oscilloscope.

And my theoretical understanding of the topic allows me to produce, among other things, the TinselKoil, which, measured and evaluated BY YOUR OWN "standard measurement" PROTOCOLS, would be so massively "overunity" that your COP>INFINITY circuit would look like a dead AAA battery in comparison.

Rosemary Ainslie · May 12, 2012, 01:24:21 PM

My dear TK.

Is your refutation now based on a comparison of our technology with your tiselkoil? Whatever that is? Because as an argument - that is SADLY WANTING.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:19:12 PM
I laugh at you, Ainslie.

Your "theoretical understanding" of your topic has produced what? A device which sits there and makes pretty colored lines on an expensive oscilloscope.

And my theoretical understanding of the topic allows me to produce, among other things, the TinselKoil, which, measured and evaluated BY YOUR OWN "standard measurement" PROTOCOLS, would be so massively "overunity" that your COP>INFINITY circuit would look like a dead AAA battery in comparison.

My theoretical understanding of power analysis is self-evidently CONSIDERABLY more reliable and well founded than yours or sean's. You CANNOT even REFUTE it. And I'm not sure that we're in competition. I would be MOST reluctant to engage with you on any such basis. Or better put - on any basis at all. I'm only here to contradict your spin.

Rosie Pose.

TinselKoala · May 12, 2012, 01:27:46 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:03:49 PM
Guys - mrsean and MileHigh are arguing that Power is NOT synonymous with energy. This is diametrically contradicted by the standard model and by the definition of power in WIKI. It is meaningless to continue this conversation when their denial is based on nothing more than denial. Denial has NEVER constituted an argument. They are both entirely wrong. Power is ENERGY. And it is represented as a QUANTITY. And it is always wholly and completely CONSERVED.

For those of you who may well be confused about this - may I propose that you look up wiki's definition. I'm simply too tired of this entire argument to bother with it further.

And mrsean. I absolutely have NOT said that a watt is calculated over a second. I have said that a watt is a unit that is applied in the computation of Joules. Which Joules are determined as the product of those WATTS applied 'per second' which is OVER TIME. You are now, together with MileHigh and TK making assumption as to my claims. I have attempted to set you right. Kindly take heed. Unless, of course, you too are here to enjoy the 'tar Rosemary Ainslie' campaign.

Regards,
Rosemary

This is so easy. Do they have a different WIKI in the southern hemisphere, or what? Are they really standing on their heads down there?

From the WIKI entries on Power and Energy:

TinselKoala · May 12, 2012, 01:30:28 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 12, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
My dear TK.

Is your refutation now based on a comparison of our technology with your tiselkoil? Whatever that is? Because as an argument - that is SADLY WANTING.

My theoretical understanding of power analysis is self-evidently CONSIDERABLY more reliable and well founded than yours or sean's. You CANNOT even REFUTE it. And I'm not sure that we're in competition. I would be MOST reluctant to engage with you on any such basis. Or better put - on any basis at all. I'm only here to contradict your spin.

Rosie Pose.

You have been refuted over and over and over EVEN BY YOUR OWN REFERENCES.

Spin all you like. I DARE YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS, any of them. This one for instance. Take your conception of energy and power to anyone of your choice...ANYONE.... and take MileHigh's or mine too. Let them compare and contrast, and REPORT YOUR RESULTS HERE.

Rosemary Ainslie · May 12, 2012, 01:34:50 PM

Thanks for that link TK.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2012, 01:30:28 PM
You have been refuted over and over and over EVEN BY YOUR OWN REFERENCES.

Spin all you like. I DARE YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS, any of them. This one for instance. Take your conception of energy and power to anyone of your choice...ANYONE.... and take MileHigh's or mine too. Let them compare and contrast, and REPORT YOUR RESULTS HERE.

NOTA BENE Guys,

"...the more power, OR EQUIVALENTLY, the more electrical energy is used per unit time"

The emphasis is my own.

Regards,
Rosemary