Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby (Read 2008112 times)

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4215 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:45:48 AM »

And with reference to this - your unreferenced EDIT

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 21, 2012, 04:37:05 AM

For that matter, explain what I've been working on for the past several weeks: the wireless transmission of power... REAL power.... using methods and techniques and calculations and measurements that you claim are wrong. How, then, am I doing it? Do you think that I am "faking" what you see in this video?

I could not care LESS what you've been working on. But it's a comfort to read that you consider it BRILLIANT. In which case I'm sure that it's been inundated with thousands of viewers who share your opinion of your own brilliance. What I have read - with some alarm - are your absurdities related to the electron current flow. Sadly. If this is the measure of your contributions to science then unfortunately - and at best - it's RIDICULOUS

Rosie Posie

changed 'is' to 'are'

TinselKoala · « **Reply #4216 on:** July 21, 2012, 04:52:22 AM »

You are so full of yourself it's amazing. You cannot take my challenge AT ALL because you know that you will just show your ignorance.

Not only are you an overweening ignoramus you are also an amazing hypocrite. You say that I am wrong... but you WILL NOT bother to illustrate HOW, using my own very clearly presented videos.

Because you CANNOT, and you dare not try, because you will make yet another laughingstock of yourself.

added "overweening" , you hypocrite.

MileHigh · « **Reply #4217 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:06:20 AM »

Rosemary:

Quote

My 'feelings' related to identity exposure are irrelevant. What I think is that anyone who takes the trouble to malign or impugn or insult or denigrate the name or the work of anyone at all - then they should be absolutely FREE TO DO SO. That is in the interests of 'freedom of speech'. However - IF they do so then they must also post under their OWN NAMES - in order that the 'maligned' or impugned' or 'insulted' or 'denigrated' can access legal recourse in order to redress those abuses - AS REQUIRED. Else it's NOT freedom of expression. It's simply the illegal ABUSE of 'freedoms of speech' without the threat of accountability. It's that practice that is systematically ERODING the most excellent value of open source.

I am entirely satisfied that should any of you TROLLS have been forced to disclose your OWN identities - then you would have been somewhat less inclined to go to such extraordinary lengths to TRY TO DESTROY MY OWN.

Rosie

You made the choice to reveal your identity - tough noogies for you. It was a stupid thing to do and you can't undo it. When you are being called "stupid" with respect to electronics and energy and the proper use of oscilloscopes, the problem for you is that it's all true. It's all true Rosemary - every day you prove to the people that read you what a clueless ignoramus you are. It's the truth - you have "destroyed yourself" in a manner of speaking.

Calling you "stupid" is not an insult, it's actually an observation and it's true.

I can feel the heat building up with your ridiculous and blatantly untrue comments about TK's educational discussion and PW's comments. You are lying through your teeth and everybody knows it. It's pathetic.

Yes, it feels like the flame-out is coming soon. Perhaps you are subconsciously doing this because the alleged testing is coming up and you are actually mortified at the thought of doing it yourself. Remember, you have no clue how a MOSFET works and you have no clue how to operate an oscilloscope. Remember the smoke steaming off the top of Aaron's head as he made a complete fool of himself when he tried to replicate your first circuit? Your head will be on fire by comparison.

Indeed, it feels like another Rosie Posie flame-out is about to happen.

And you are disgusting because you will not acknowledge that you could endanger the lives of other people, even if the possibility is remote. Complete and total gutter trash moral bankruptcy. Shame on you, so revolting.

Flame out and disappear and start taking meds to get yourself away from this obsession. Chuck your garbage in the garbage and disappear. That would do you a lot of good.

MileHigh

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4218 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:06:54 AM »

Actually - while I'm at it I had better post my answer to MileHigh here as well - lest he IGNORE that answer and pretend that he's not seen it.

Rosie Pose

added
Apologies MileHigh. It seems I underestimate you. You DID INDEED post my reply. But I'll leave my post in nonetheless to remind people how thin is your argument. And WHAT IS A FLAME OUT? I've never heard the term?

Rosie

Here's that reply...

Quote from: Rosie on July 21, 2012, 04:31:09 AM

Quote from: MileHigh on July 21, 2012, 04:07:50 AM

Considering this particular day today, how do you feel about threatening to reveal people's identities without their consent?

MileHigh
My 'feelings' related to identity exposure are irrelevant. What I think is that anyone who takes the trouble to malign or impugn or insult or denigrate the name or the work of anyone at all - then they should be absolutely FREE TO DO SO. That is in the interests of 'freedom of speech'. However - IF they do so then they must also post under their OWN NAMES - in order that the 'maligned' or impugned' or 'insulted' or 'denigrated' can access legal recourse in order to redress those abuses - AS REQUIRED. Else it's NOT freedom of expression. It's simply the illegal ABUSE of 'freedoms of speech' without the threat of accountability. It's that practice that is systematically ERODING the most excellent value of open source.

I am entirely satisfied that should any of you TROLLS have been forced to disclose your OWN identities - then you would have been somewhat less inclined to go to such extraordinary lengths to TRY TO DESTROY MY OWN.

Rosie

Magluvin · « **Reply #4219 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:43:53 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 04:02:50 AM

IF this were the explanation for the continuous nature of current flow - THEN - it would take about 20 minutes for those electrons to shuffle through your average 2 - 4 meters of wire from the switch to the appliance - before that appliance would get the benefit of that 'exchange'. Again. It would take 20 minutes from the moment that you throw the switch 'on' to getting your kettle to start cooking - your light to light - your fan to turn - and so on.
continued / ...

In my opinion, if you are talking about AC the kettle or the light, the electrons moving back and forth in the wire from the plug outlet probably never reach the device being powered. Just back and forth, from one point to another. Many of the electrons that are in the filament of the bulb being powered probably never leave the filament, just back and forth or at rest.

Just because electrons seem to move slow, doesnt mean there isnt any power behind it. Like 1 molecule of water, then fill an empty ocean with them. Even what would look like a relatively slow looking wave can contain immense power.

Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that the reaction at the other end of the conductor cant possibly seem instantaneous when pressure is applied to the beginning of that wire.

Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that, what seem to be large value, big numbers cannot be applied to a record of their flow. Tiny buggers and a whole lot of them.

Ya cant let what seems to be slow, have any meaning in what can be done at that density and speed. What seems slow is really like an asteroid flying from solar system to solar system at speeds we can only dream of, if put to scale. imagine the energy it would take to do that.

But electrons dont always have to seem slow. Consider them in a vacuum, say a CRT(television picture tube), the speed of the electrons from the cathode guns to the anode screen at the front of the tube I would say is quite fast. So really slow from the circuit board to the cathode, then full charge from the cathode through the tubes vacuum to the positively charged screen, and then slow again once in the conductor circuit.

MaGs

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4220 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:51:37 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 05:43:53 AM

In my opinion, if you are talking about AC the kettle or the light, the electrons moving back and forth in the wire from the plug outlet probably never reach the device being powered. Just back and forth, from one point to another. Many of the electrons that are in the filament of the bulb being powered probably never leave the filament, just back and forth or at rest.

Just because electrons seem to move slow, doesnt mean there isnt any power behind it. Like 1 molecule of water, then fill an empty ocean with them. Even what would look like a relatively slow looking wave can contain immense power.

Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that the reaction at the other end of the conductor cant possibly seem instantaneous when pressure is applied to the beginning of that wire.

Just because they seem to move slow, doesnt mean that, what seem to be large value, big numbers cannot be applied to a record of their flow. Tiny buggers and a whole lot of them.

Ya cant let what seems to be slow, have any meaning in what can be done at that density and speed. What seems slow is really like an asteroid flying from solar system to solar system at speeds we can only dream of, if put to scale. imagine the energy it would take to do that.

But electrons dont always have to seem slow. Consider them in a vacuum, say a CRT(television picture tube), the speed of the electrons from the cathode guns to the anode screen at the front of the tube I would say is quite fast. So really slow from the circuit board to the cathode, then full charge from the cathode through the tubes vacuum to the positively charged screen, and then slow again once in the conductor circuit.

MaGs

Golly Magsy, That's a new take. Indeed. We can all of us assume that the speed of light itself is relative. Good point. I'm sure you're right. The trouble is that you can't measure a speculated velocity. One can only measure ACTUAL velocity. And our chemists and particle physicists have done this. And that's the speed. Take it or leave it. Think what you like about it. It's still a paradox. Sadly. And IF there's pressures somewhere - somehow - then those pressures are WHAT? Nothing? A field? And then? A field of WHAT? A force exerted by the vacuum? So? What's that vacuum? A place that exerts a force? It explains NOTHING - sadly. And it's that 'nothing' that you guys have not been able to explain. The best you can manage is 'holes' - which in turn makes no kind of logical sense AT ALL.

Kindest regards Magsy,
Rosie

picowatt · « **Reply #4221 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:57:25 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 04:42:15 AM

INDEED I cannot. Nor will I. I no longer bother with those videos of yours TK. I prefer to be taught by articulate and intelligent members such as Poynty or Groundloop - or even directly from our Greats. You are utterly INCAPABLE of teaching anything at all.

Rosie Pose

This is great! There is much .99 and GL can teach you. The question is, however, will you learn?

If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?

Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?

Just curious...

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4222 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:10:16 AM »

Quote from: picowatt on July 21, 2012, 05:57:25 AM

This is great! There is much .99 and GL can teach you. The question is, however, will you learn?

If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?

Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?

Just curious...

The difference between Poynty and Groundloop is that they're both highly intelligent and in their own fields - frankly - I think they're geniuses. I have not and will not comment on their arguments until I hear them. Right now I have NOT heard them. And IF they're right - then we will NEVER be able to extend the capacity of a battery beyond its watt hour rating. No-one will. We have done those experiments - TO DEATH. We know what the outcome will be - certainly as it relates to the COP>17 test. Not yet on our NERD circuit. So. Whatever argument is finally USED - then it has to incorporate that gain. Short of this their arguments will be void. BUT their knowledge of electronics will ALWAYS be far in excess of my own. Anyone's is. But in my view their talents are the acme of electronics and circuitry. And while I have very little of that knowledge I have I have a fair understanding of pure physics. Which is the subject of that apparatus. And that knowledge of the fundamentals of physics is also the foundation for my own argument. You guys can scoff it as long as you dare. It's a required process to the introduction of new paradigm shifts. And I'm perfectly happy that I'm the brunt. But history reverses - and we'll see what happens when I finally do those demonstrations.

And regarding both Groundloop and Poynty - they both have the further merit of being able to write a post without insulting the technology or myself. That far exceeds your own competence picowatt - and CERTAINLY it exceeds TK's. He can't post without including gratuitous insults. But that's because he's intellectually constrained by his GER... as a measure of ...dare I say it... his pickle? Something like that. I've never quite got my head around it. They both seem somewhat incidental and irrelevant. Frankly I get the distinct impression that he's trying to make us think that they're measurable. Golly.

Rosie Pose

picowatt · « **Reply #4223 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:19:34 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 06:10:16 AM

The difference between Poynty and Groundloop is that they're both highly intelligent and in their own fields - frankly - I think they're geniuses. I have not and will not comment on their arguments until I hear them. Right now I have NOT heard them. And IF they're right - then we will NEVER be able to extend the capacity of a battery beyond its watt hour rating. No-one will. We have done those experiments - TO DEATH. We know what the outcome will be - certainly as it relates to the COP>17 test. Not yet on our NERD circuit. So. Whatever argument is finally USED - then it has to incorporate that gain. Short of this their arguments will be void. BUT their knowledge of electronics will ALWAYS be far in excess of my own. Anyone's is. But in my view their talents are the acme of electronics and circuitry. And while I have very little of that knowledge I have I have a fair understanding of pure physics. Which is the subject of that apparatus. And that knowledge of the fundamentals of physics is also the foundation for my own argument. You guys can scoff it as long as you dare. It's a required process to the introduction of new paradigm shifts. And I'm perfectly happy that I'm the brunt. But history reverses - and we'll see what happens when I finally do those demonstrations.

And regarding both Groundloop and Poynty - they both have the further merit of being able to write a post without insulting the technology or myself. That far exceeds your own competence picowatt - and CERTAINLY it exceeds TK's. He can't post without including gratuitous insults. But that's because he's intellectually constrained by his GER... as a measure of ...dare I say it... his pickle? Something like that. I've never quite got my head around it. They both seem somewhat incidental and irrelevant. Frankly I get the distinct impression that he's trying to make us think that they're measurable. Golly.

Rosie Pose

You will find that if you go back and read your locked thread, it was YOU that first denigrted MY abilities when I asked you about Q1. You wanted to argue that I was not even qualified to read your 'scope. But no matter.

I will repeat my previous post for you, as again you provide no answers...

"This is great! There is much .99 and GL can teach you. The question is, however, will you learn?

If .99 and GL "teach" you that in FIG3 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn it on and yet no current flow is observed which can only mean that Q1 must be non-functional or not connected as per the schematic, will you "learn", see your error, and retract that data, or just resort to calling them a "joke" as well?

Similarly, when you learn that Q2 is biased on when the FG output is a negative voltage and bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG, will you also retract your commentary regarding no current flow thru Q2 and the battery being "disconnected" during the oscillation?

Just curious..."

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4224 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:22:36 AM »

My dear picowatt - YOU need to reread that thread and your own contributions. And you really need to learn the trick of saying something new. That is if you expect anyone at all to respect your opinions.

Rosie Pose

Magluvin · « **Reply #4225 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:26:52 AM »

Lets put it this way Rosie. If they move at light speed, how long do you think your battery charge will last with the electrons moving from the NEG post to the POS post, at light speed?

Or a super capacitor, 3000 Farads at 2.3v, how is it going to keep the led lit for so long if the electrons escape to the POS side of the cap, through the lit led, at light speed?

Say we have a 16awg wire and we slice a pepperoni off the end 1 atom thick. How many atoms of copper could you possibly imagine there might be in that copper pepperoni?
Thats a lot of electrons to move, just in that 1 slice. Now stack those slices 100 atoms thick. 100 times more electrons to move, just 100 atoms thick. Compared to the AWG diameter of the copper disk, we need a whole lot more layers for the stack length to equal the 16awg width of the wire.

Its the speed of how a circuit reacts as a whole, that is what happens at the speed of light. A wire from NY to Cali can transfer an ac signal because of chain reaction in the wire. A wave. Wave Waveform positive negative pressure and decompression back and forth.

Like a wave in the ocean, out at sea. The ups are where pressure is applied, and the dips are depressurized. But just because that wave traveled 100 feet from your boat to my boat doesnt mean that the actual water molecules traveled from your boat to mine.

MaGs

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4226 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:36:48 AM »

Magsy,

Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 06:26:52 AM

Lets put it this way Rosie. If they move at light speed, how long do you think your battery charge will last with the electrons moving from the NEG post to the POS post, at light speed?

Or a super capacitor, 3000 Farads at 2.3v, how is it going to keep the led lit for so long if the electrons escape to the POS side of the cap, through the lit led, at light speed?

Say we have a 16awg wire and we slice a pepperoni off the end 1 atom thick. How many atoms of copper could you possibly imagine there might be in that copper pepperoni?
Thats a lot of electrons to move, just in that 1 slice. Now stack those slices 100 atoms thick. 100 times more electrons to move, just 100 atoms thick. Compared to the AWG diameter of the copper disk, we need a whole lot more layers for the stack length to equal the 16awg width of the wire.

Its the speed of how a circuit reacts as a whole, that is what happens at the speed of light. A wire from NY to Cali can transfer an ac signal because of chain reaction in the wire. A wave. Wave Waveform positive negative pressure and decompression back and forth.

Like a wave in the ocean, out a sea. The ups are where pressure is applied, and the dips are depressurized. But just because that wave traveled 100 feet from your boat to my boat doesnt mean that the actual water molecules traveled from your boat to mine.

MaGs

It is my opinion which is supported by the measured evidence - that electrons do not move at light speed through a circuit. I believe that some material outside of the atom and incidental to the electron - moves at twice the speed of light. But that's my thesis. The point being that IF one includes that 'field' AND it's particle - then we would have a reasonable explanation for the instantaneous property of electric energy. And again. It is NOT my theory. I am only using Faraday's field theory. And I'm theoretically proposing a particle to that field. It would not conform to the standard model. And it would yet reflect the required properties to answer ALL outstanding questions related to the 'missing particle' or the 'god particle' or 'Higgs boson'. Or call it what you will.

But it's not required that you buy into the concept. On the contrary. If you're happy that the standard model answers everything - then that's fine. No-one is obliged to believe anything at all. But leave it there Magsy. I'm not about to discuss my thesis on this rather unfortunate thread.

Regards,
Rosie

picowatt · « **Reply #4227 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:49:05 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 21, 2012, 06:22:36 AM

My dear picowatt - YOU need to reread that thread and your own contributions. And you really need to learn the trick of saying something new. That is if you expect anyone at all to respect your opinions.

Rosie Pose

I have reread portions of that that thread, several times. At least you have dropped the "offset argument" regarding how to read your 'scope.

Something new? How does that "trick" change a fact. I would indeed move on and speak to something new if you would ever provide the correct answer to my very first question and respond ethically by retracting the erroneous data related thereto.

If you value .99's and GL's genius, then why not ask them about Q1?

In FIG3, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, approximately +12volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1. All will agree that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 will turn Q1 fully on. Yet, during that same portion of the FG cycle, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace as would be anticipated if Q1 were turned on. This can only mean that Q1 is either non-functional or is not connected as per the schematic.

As well, in FIG6 and FIG7, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn Q1 on while the CSR trace indicates no significant current flow. Again, this can only mean that Q1 is non-functional or not connected as per the schematic.

In FIG5, a capture from the month prior, approximately +5 volts is indicated as Q1 gate drive and, as expected, significant current flow is indicated by the CSR.

Moving on to "something new" and just pretending these facts will fade away does not address them at all...

Magluvin · « **Reply #4228 on:** July 21, 2012, 07:11:45 AM »

I would say that when an electron jumps from one atom to the next, that the jump happens at light speed. that distance is very small But to say that some extra (say 500)electrons pumped into the wire from NY to Cali, and believe that it is those 500 electrons that made it to cali, bypassing all the other electrons in the cable is just silly. Those 500 electrons will be pumped into the beginning of the wire, applying pressure/tension in the wire. In Cali, 500 electrons that were sitting at the very end of the cable will be pumped out and thats it.

If we have a tube the size of a quarter(US 25cent piece) roll from US to you and it is filled with quarters, from me to you. If I push 10 quarters in my end, 10 quarters will fall out at your end, instantly. But my quarters didnt travel at light speed. But you received what I sent, at virtually the speed of light. Is that so hard to believe?

This new theory you have. Have you seen it? Measured it?

Mags

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #4229 on:** July 21, 2012, 07:17:53 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 07:11:45 AM

I would say that when an electron jumps from one atom to the next, that the jump happens at light speed. that distance is very small But to say that some extra (say 500)electrons pumped into the wire from NY to Cali, and believe that it is those 500 electrons that made it to cali, bypassing all the other electrons in the cable is just silly. Those 500 electrons will be pumped into the beginning of the wire, applying pressure/tension in the wire. In Cali, 500 electrons that were sitting at the very end of the cable will be pumped out and thats it.

If we have a tube the size of a quarter(US 25cent piece) roll from US to you and it is filled with quarters, from me to you. If I push 10 quarters in my end, 10 quarters will fall out at your end, instantly. But my quarters didnt travel at light speed. But you received what I sent, at virtually the speed of light. Is that so hard to believe?

Yes it's hard to believe. If you push 10 quarters in at one end then DOWN THAT LINE ten quarters need to be replaced - one, by one, by one. No other way to complete that journey. And that speed is NOT at light speed. It is measurably SLOWER. That's NOT my argument. That's our EXPERTS. And they really do know how to measure this. So. If you choose to believe this - then, frankly, you're on your own. But feel free. No-one is prescribing beliefs. It's just that belief has nothing to do with science.

Quote from: Magluvin on July 21, 2012, 07:11:45 AM

This new theory you have. Have you seen it? Measured it?

YES INDEED. We've measured it in both our COP>17 tests and in our NERD circuits. And we've reconciled it with the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron. We've argued it as a field - and we've used self-consistent arguments THROUGHOUT.

added
Here's the multiple proof...
It reconciles the mass size ratio of the proton to the electron
It reconciles the Casimir effect
It reconciles the gravitational force
It answers to the requirement of missing matter measured by our astrophysicists
It conforms to the non-standard properties of the Higgs Boson
It reconciles all the forces
It conforms to known physical principles
It conforms to the composite structure proposed in the protons
It introduces the concept of a fundamental particle as the basis of all particles as required by our particle physicists
It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.

That's not a bad start.

Rosie
added...It conforms IN WHOLE AND IN PART to the requirement of our string theorists.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby (Read 2008112 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

TinselKoala

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

MileHigh

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Magluvin

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

picowatt

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

picowatt

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Magluvin

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

picowatt

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Magluvin

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby