This might blow your mind

[Magluvin]

Your right, My last reply over there is posted. 

Mags

[WilbyInebriated]

mags... alsetalokin(tinsel koala) is just playing you... he's wasting your time and energy just like he wasted lots of peoples time, energy and money with his previous hoax; the whipmag.  do you really want to continue discussions with a guy who doesn't even have the balls to admit he is the 'alsetalokin' of whipmag infamy?  professional integrity is the cornerstone of a scientist's credibility.  tinselkoalaalsetalokin has none.

[WilbyInebriated]

mags, here is the stuff from rose's old thread that tinselkoalaalsetalokin wanted you (and the other 3 readers ) to read...  from: http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg197621/#msg197621

Quote from: utilitarian on August 16, 2009, 09:59:44 PM

Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?

that wasn't the conclusion being posited by tk. he had concluded (apparently before he started his hack of a 'replication') it was perfectly ok to substitute a mosfet based on data sheets. i called him on it. he didn't actually voice this conclusion until page 2.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 08:13:03 AM

OK, several points to address.
    First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.

he then made an asinine hypothesis (see below for how that turned out) about the irfpg50 performance, never once specifying 'over unity performance'. i called him on it. he then asked if i could show how it would perform any different on page 11.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 08:28:24 PM

The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.

    Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

    If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

    If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


    (EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)

please take note of these words...
My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet.  Hers cannot be corrected so easily.
here he is referring to his claim of no difference in mosfet performance, let alone OU, and her claim of over unity which he was calling erroneous due to the duty cycle issue.
and these words...
significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used.
note no mention of over unity performance, just performance. why oh why do i have to hammer this in? oh yeah, the slow ones...
they (tk and his merry band of sycophants) all jabbered for a while pretending how smart they are and then, asymatrix quantified it once again as being non relative to over unity performance by saying this on page 24.

Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 12:12:43 AM

Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.

tk did not amend this to being specifically relative to OU performance. while they (tk and his merry band of sycophants again) continued to jabber about how smart they are and how little i know, etc. i waited for him to get around to actually testing this experimentally. when he finally did, on page 42 i might add. he found this out.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 06:50:12 PM

The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
    The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
    I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.

    So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

take note of these words...
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that.

he did however, try to claim he 'meant' over unity performance later. much later. page 108 actually.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 07:07:38 AM

"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.

i called him on that too.

so tinsel-lokin, where's that mea culpa you owe me? you still still have no integrity...  SHAH MAT!

[Magluvin]

WILBY!       Thanks

My coil holder needed a reglue last night.

By after work they will be solid.  Gota git ta work

Mags

[TinselKoala]

So... Wilby, my own dear personal troll... WHERE'S the OVERUNITY PERFORMANCE?


You are the master of the strawman+ad hominem arguments, that's for sure.

Where is the demonstration of Rosemary Ainslie's overunity performance? Have YOU ever seen one? Why aren't we powering our homes with IRFPG50 mosfets recharging batteries infinitely?

What I do and think doesn't matter at all, does it. And what YOU do and think doesn't either.

WHERE IS THE OVERUNITY PERFORMANCE? It sure won't be found in Ainslie's circuit, and if you don't think my work contributed to the understanding of her circuit by the people working on it, that is your opinion. Meanwhile.... I suppose you see nothing wrong with what Rosemary is claiming in that other thread. 25.6 million Joules into 900 grams of water in 100 minutes. DO THE MATH.... I think you can probably handle it. You did go to high school at least, didn't you?
THEN WHY AREN'T YOU OBJECTING to Rosie's blatant errors and lies?

You all act like it's my fault that she --- and everybody else who's tried her circuit -- can't really get overunity performance.  Meanwhile.... "PER" according to Rose NEVER denotes division, a Joule is a Watt per second, and she thinks her oxtail soup uses 46 million Watts to cook. And you want to complain about my experimental work. You are really really funny. Sad, illogical, misdirected, but really really funny.

How about you REFUTE my findings instead of just complaining that I did them wrong? Show a CORRECT replication of what you think I didn't do properly. PROVE ME WRONG, don't just assert it.

What does MY scientific integrity have to do with Rosemary Ainslie's claims? Nothing at all. You should be questioning HER integrity with reference to HER claims. I'm not making any claims... and as I recall, neither did alsetalokin.

If you don't trust me... then ignore me and build her circuit and test it yourself. Waste your own time, or discover Overunity on your own.
You don't need to learn from others, either mistakes or successes. Just do it yourself. That way you won't need to keep illustrating what an argumentum ad hominem, abusive, looks like.

And while you're at it... try the 2sk1548. You just might learn something... on your own.