Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

TK - if you do not want my input it can only be because you want to comment - free from contradiction or challenge.  In effect the TarBaby thread would then be as relevant as a 'gossip column' - and have no relevance to any facts at all - let alone to science.  Frankly I think that would be a gross insult to the objects of this forum - a gross insult to the integrity of our readers - a gross insult to the intelligence of both our members and our readers - and a gross abuse of impartial and relevant assessment owed to good science practice and protocols.  It would be a gross abuse of the interest owed to the public good - which requires impartiality.  And it would be a gross abuse of the 'real truth' which is MileHigh's measure of excellence - albeit that it's somewhat tautological.

Therefore I put it to you that my input most certainly IS required.  God knows what our readers would have deduced, thus far, had I not pointed out where you TARBABY circuit is NOT a replication.  Because in defiance of the evidence - or the lack of it - (one or other or both options, as preferred) - you keep insisting that it is. 

As ever,
Rosie Posee/Poser
Changed deviance to defiance - but both terms are appropriate.   

I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.

[TinselKoala]

Just in case there was any doubt, the Clarke-Hess can and will report "negative wattage" if it detects it. The numbers in the left window can be several things, but when "PWR" or "Px10" is selected the window displays the real power figure determined by taking into account the phase relationship between the voltage and current signals detected. Here the instrument is just "floating", its input harness isn't connected to anything, and it's picking up stray EM in the DeepBunker. (Selecting the "freq" display in the left window gives me a 60 Hz indication.) Look !! Free Energy, Negative Wattage !!

[TinselKoala]

Poynty Point.  If you're there.  PLEASE put TK straight.  I'm now seriously concerned that he's convinced himself that we're NOT using 1 Ohm resistors x 4 - in parallel.  You're well able to show this.  I can't.  I can't even find the appropriate shot.  It's too dark here and it's too late and my eyes are not equal to it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

YET AGAIN you lie. Nowhere do I allege or assert anything other than that you are using ONE OHM, TEN WATT resistors in parallel in your demo and your work. However, your paper lists them as ONE WATT.
I can see the resistors in the pictures of your demo and I can read the labels, ffs. YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS INSANE DISTORTION OF WHAT I SAY AND SHOW.

My whole point is that the INDUCTANCE of these resistors is much higher than what your paper says that they are, and this discrepancy needs to be addressed.

Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.

[TinselKoala]

Here is Yet Another refutation of a misrepresentation that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance.

I refer to her complaint about the amplitude of the oscillations on the Tar Baby BATTERY trace... which once again she has wilfully ignored and lied about. This video should make it perfectly clear that:

1) the battery trace oscillations are the same amplitude as NERD shows on scope traces
2) the amplitude of the battery trace oscillations is set by finely tuning the drive from the FG or the 555
3) the current through the system depends on the oscillation amplitude and is set by 2) above
4) the load heats up in this mode, and by an amount that depends on the current in 3).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUxzOyS-ck

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.

My dear TinselKoala,
Here's the thing.  If you did not insult our work - then I would not be insulting yours.  The original insult stems from a compulsive requirement to deny our claim based on any reason at all.  When I challenge those bases - which are insulting to me - you are thereby insulted by that challenge.  And that simply compounds those insults whereupon you lose your emotional control and then run to Stefan for appeals to 'intervene'. 

I would hope that if you are to evaluate the evidence that is shown in our papers - that you would also evaluate the actual claim.  Thus far you have not even addressed it.  It relates to the negative voltage computed across the shunt resistors.  And there most assuredly ARE 4 of them and they most assuredly are at 1 Ohm.  And their inductance has been carefully evaluated with the fine and calibrated instrument shown in our video display.  Therefore when you question those facts then you are inferring errors and those inferences are inappropriate.  And when you don't refer to the current flow measured from those resistors - then you are omitting the only relevant aspect of our claim.  And yet.  Without all that INFERENCE you have no argument.  So?  What to do?

My options are to let you continue this thread - which will make it the most biased equivalent of a scientific 'gossip column' ever to disgrace these forums.  Fraught as it is with the misrepresentations associated with any kind of 'gossip'.  Or I must interject - timeously - with some kind of protest against that gossip.  Knowing how much you resent any corrections - notwithstanding it's dire need - I also know that you're very likely to lose any kind of emotional control and that you'll 'run to Stefan' very much as my grandchildren 'run to their mother' - when they've got a complaint. 

May I remind you.  My own thread was comprehensively set ablaze by the contributions of MileHigh, fuzzytomcat, and picowatt and your good self.  My post response lagged your combined input by a factor not less than 6 and possibly as high as 10.  At no stage did I need to run to Harti.  And - on the face of it - I'd say that I was somewhat outnumbered.  But never outgunned.  So.  I put it to you that you can only comfortably operate when you are free to promote your irrelevant assessments of our claim.  And that your objects are not to evaluate anything at all  - but to put a spin on things in the thin hopes that no-one then believes our results or that they dismiss them - out of hand.  And that authority depends on the welter of support that is on 'tap' from precisely these personalities.  And I also suspect that every time that Harti bans me it's because you 4 together with that charming host who contribute to my hate blog -  send him emails - in concert - to protest to my posting anything at all.

Well.  One needs must ask why?  Why are you so anxious to apply your 'spin'?  And why must you do this without fear of 'contradiction'?  Because the disciplines of science require that everything is always challenged.  But under usual circumstances - both sides of the case needs must be evaluated.  Are you trying to promote something that is less than scientific?  Are you anxious that people don't realise your instruments aren't capable of performing the measurements that you claim?  Are you hoping that all will overlook our actual claim while you pretend that it's entirely related to the evidence of an oscillation?  Which on its own means absolutely nothing at all?  Are you persisting with the use of the wrong element resistor to avoid showing the benefits of it's higher 'iron mass' and it's higher inductance value?  Are you casting aspersions related to our shunt resistor measurements because you hope thereby to assure our readers that our measurements are fallacious?  Are you avoiding mention of the DC coupling of our oscilloscope - so that you can promote 'doubts' related to the voltage measured across the gate?  Are you avoiding any analysis of the energy dissipated in your calorimetric apparatus because you can only 'infer' a value and not actually measure it?  And why do you keep referring to my 'mendacity' if it's not to cast a slur against my good character?  And where have I 'lied'?  as you repeatedly claim. 

If you had any strength of conviction you would most certainly NOT need the rather vocal support of those who you keep appealing to - to rally.  And you would be more than ready to 'take me on'.  But you can't.  Your argument is weak.  In fact it's non-existent.  And you cannot manage anything at all when the 'real truth' (MileHigh's term, not mine) is brought to the table.  Therefore do you need to silence me.  And to effect that you'd prefer it that I was 'banned'.  That's hardly an acceptable solution.  I need to defend our claim against a valid counterclaim.  I have had no such evidence. 

Regards,
Rosemary
added some emphasis.  still not enough.