Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I claim NOTHING related to the NERD circuit.  We have presented two papers that need expert evaluation and those papers only POINT AT QUESTIONS. We are asking those questions.  And there is no mere mortal who will EVER know the truth in any absolute sense.

Regards
Rosie Pose

You claim nothing now. Fine, that's good.

The "papers" you have presented can't even agree on the circuit diagram and the instruments used, and they don't specify components in sufficient detail. Not only that they present an incomprehensible "thesis" that is completely at odds with conventional understanding, makes no quantitative predictions, and is contradicted by experiment. The "questions" pointed at have in large part been answered just fine, only you, Ainslie, reject the explanations because you can't understand them nor do they support your "thesis" word salad.
And finally, yes, there are plenty of mere mortals who will and do already know the truth about you and your circuit, Ainslie.

But all that is moot, because finally, YOU CLAIM NOTHING.

[MileHigh]

Wow, another tough few days at "the office" around here I see.  Rosemary doesn't even understand what a "voltage source" really means and as a result she thinks that the Q2 array source pins are "floating."  She rants about this "antiphase" business between the Q1 and Q2 array gates being driven by he function generator without understanding that one leg of the function generator is effectively tied to ground.  It's reminiscent of Poynt's formal "exercise in power analysis" with Rosemary where the circuit in question for the exercise was a single resistor connected to a battery.  That resulted in a near total freakout/meltdown by Rosemary.

There is no solution to the real problem, and we all know what the real problem is.

That's related to my lament about "free energy" "researchers" in general.  The learning curve is slow or sometimes doesn't even exist.  The hope for some synergy and advancement of the group is dashed by the "belief systems" that exist.  Some of these belief systems are deep-rooted are actively promoted by some high-profile and notable personalities that have a pseudo professional sheen about them.  Things like "negative 'radiant' energy" and "positive 'radiant' energy."

Clearly Rosemary has her own belief systems based on God knows what, and she isn't really going to budge.  She is simply a more extreme example of a typical misinformed free energy researcher.  That enigmatic high voltage spike has transfixed thousands of them because they think that they are seeing something "magic" or "from the vacuum."  They play with a 12-volt battery and discover that they can generate hundreds of volts with a coil and then think that they have tapped into the source of the space-time continuum or something.

Rosie refuses to learn, and realistically she would need about two years of schooling to know what she is talking about.  That's not going to happen so there is no solution along those lines.

The only solution is to go the dim bulb route.  With small enough batteries and properly done testing, poor Rosie Posie will discover that every single test that she runs will show that everything is 100% conventional and nothing special is happening.

So the ball is in your court Rosemary.  It's impossible to teach you how your circuit works, you won't listen or learn.  So the solution is to bypass this "strong point" and continue the battle closer to your home.

Run the battery tests, that's the only thing that you have got left.  Technically, after the past dozen or so pages on this thread, you are in a complete shambles.  It has been a tiresome spectacle to see how you can't understand what is going on around you.

"Something is happening, and you don't know what it is.  Do you, Mr. Jones?"

Please just do the battery testing.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh, regarding your comments here...

That's related to my lament about "free energy" "researchers" in general.  The learning curve is slow or sometimes doesn't even exist.  The hope for some synergy and advancement of the group is dashed by the "belief systems" that exist.  Some of these belief systems are deep-rooted are actively promoted by some high-profile and notable personalities that have a pseudo professional sheen about them.  Things like "negative 'radiant' energy" and "positive 'radiant' energy."

Clearly Rosemary has her own belief systems based on God knows what, and she isn't really going to budge.  She is simply a more extreme example of a typical misinformed free energy researcher.  That enigmatic high voltage spike has transfixed thousands of them because they think that they are seeing something "magic" or "from the vacuum."  They play with a 12-volt battery and discover that they can generate hundreds of volts with a coil and then think that they have tapped into the source of the space-time continuum or something.

Not one of my collaborators subscribe to free energy or even 'over unity'.  And nor do I.  Therefore IF we are simply more extreme examples of a 'typical misinformed free energy researchers' - then CONFUSINGLY - we also DENY it's existence.  Do not try and paint us with the same tar brush that TK applies to our technology with his heavily 'blackened' Tar Baby.  Your comments are profoundly incorrect.  And they simply constitute more of that vigilante 'spin'.  And that use of the term 'vigilante' is unfortunately appropriate - as the entire concept of the 'tar baby' has racial and prejudicial implications that are entirely unacceptable in any social context at all - let alone in a scientific context.

That you all INSIST on this shows us all that you have NOT read our papers. Or you have not understood them. In either case you are patently under qualified to comment. And our papers are NOT the 'word salad' that TK suggests.  They have been widely commended for their 'clarity' and this from professionals that include some highly respected names.  I'd disclose them if they wouldn't then be associated with this and my own threads littered as they all are with that reckless and criminal slander that you all indulge.  With all that vigilante zeal.

What we propose is that there's a second energy supply source.  Factor that supply into those results and we most assuredly do NOT exceed unity.  We simply propose that there's some evident need to redefine 'unity'.  And THAT redefinition - will then point to the existence of dark energy.  Which is NOT our discovery.  We merely give further evidence of the existence of dark matter.  Which is required as there is already unequivocal evidence of dark matter in the vacuum of space and around our galaxies.  All of them.   

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

She's never going to do any battery testing.


Here's what I think. There is a bare minimum of knowledge and common terminology that simply must be required by anybody who wants to engage in this kind of research - to be polite - and this kind of discussion. Since in the present case we are talking about electronic circuitry and power measurement.... I mean, really.

Ainslie should be made to explain the errors, correct them, revise the conclusions based on the errors, and post the corrections publicly, for the "math" that she has performed in the quotes below from this forum and her blog.

If she spouts that asinine "DO THE MATH" thing one more time, yet lets this garbage stand uncorrected..... well, do the math.

Let's just say that Ainslie has absolutely no credibility until she can show she understands what == or WATT == is wrong with these "calculations". And that's just the first step in establishing any smidgen of credibility at all... since there are many many more errors and false claims that she has made that are easily refutable.

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

In any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - TK needs to address some serious and slanderous allegations before he can expect any kind of engagement.  Had his 'attitude' been more politically and scientifically appropriate - then he'd have solicited co-operation.  We are not encouraged to engage with those who criminally slander our work and our names.  And we do not engage on a serious level with vigilantes.  And we will do our tests - NOT for the benefit of these vigilantes - but for the benefit of Open Source.  The distinction being that the former is destructive and utterly inappropriate.  The latter is required to protect these very desirable results for the public good.

Regards,
Rosemary

She's never going to do any battery testing.


Here's what I think. There is a bare minimum of knowledge and common terminology that simply must be required by anybody who wants to engage in this kind of research - to be polite - and this kind of discussion. Since in the present case we are talking about electronic circuitry and power measurement.... I mean, really.

Ainslie should be made to explain the errors, correct them, revise the conclusions based on the errors, and post the corrections publicly, for the "math" that she has performed in the quotes below from this forum and her blog.

If she spouts that asinine "DO THE MATH" thing one more time, yet lets this garbage stand uncorrected..... well, do the math.

Let's just say that Ainslie has absolutely no credibility until she can show she understands what == or WATT == is wrong with these "calculations". And that's just the first step in establishing any smidgen of credibility at all... since there are many many more errors and false claims that she has made that are easily refutable.