Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

PM me your address Little TK and I'll send you a photograph of me.  I KNOW how you appreciate us well toned ladies.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

You are forgetting several things, troll: First, you supposedly already have my address. Second, I already have pictures, actual pictures, of you, and "svelte" does not do you justice. "Scrawny", "Boyish figure", "frail".... those are more appropriate. Remember your "hello from SA" video? And I even have a picture of your little ratdog, what was his name, Prometheus or something. And third, there is no third thing. Fourth, you remain a trolling, transparent, arrogant fool.

You are, as usual, trying to deflect the thread to BURY THE SIGNIFICANT RESULTS THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN POSTED.

We can play this game a bit but then you know we will get back to the serious business of debunking your bunkum.

Let's see... we have discovered another egregious "error" in your daft manuscript (sic): You claim to have used 6 batteries but the accompanying scopeshot clearly shows that you only used 4, hence invalidating that entire section of the daft manuscript; we have again demonstrated the error and mendacity involved with your Quantum magazine publication -- your ONLY legitimate publication other than the patent APPLICATIONS.... and we have given you another opportunity to display your vileness and corrupt heart, by lying about me and posting the images you post, instead of talking about the issues that have been raised... the VERY SERIOUS ISSUES of your pseudoscientific misconduct.


Meanwhile, I have, as usual, been doing YOUR HOMEWORK for you. Instead of your misleading your builder gmeast as you have done, I show how, in a matter of ten minutes, the ORIGINAL 555 timer with its INVERTED DUTY CYCLE, non-working to make the cycles you claimed to have used... I show, I say, how to make it WORK "PROPERLY" to give whatever duty cycle you might need within its extreme endpoint range. This is accomplished not by some crazy belief in a "model" that doesn't make any useful predictions, but rather by a relatively sound understanding of basic ELECTRONIC principles including HOW COMPONENTS ACTUALLY FUNCTION and just what "things" are flowing inside them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIANNRpl6FA

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy all,

Well I can see why Rosemary doesn't publish just "ANY" image attachment to a posting.

Here we have her forum member "gmeast" posting a "QUANTUM" COP>17 device schematic Mosfet_Heater_Circuit_11-26-2009.jpg which isn't but a "MODIFIED" version that I used with my testing and evaluation of Rosemary's claimed device.

http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html         02-06-2010, 10:53 PM

Hi everyone,

This Open Source thread is for the advancement of a "Mosfet Heating Circuit" one that is a modified replication of one described in the Quantum October 2002 article.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Mosfet_Heater_Circuit_11-26-2009.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/MosfetHeaterCircuitComponents.jpg

The goal is to provide all possible updates and modifications to the existing "Revised 11-26-2009" circuit to find a higher "Coefficient of Performance" or COP using the latest circuit components, technology and equipment  available for the advancement of this present circuit being used.

It will also given the time needed to document and fully evaluate previous testing and future testing on a submittal for possible publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine and Scribd the worlds largest on line publisher.

Please .... refrain from cutting and pasting this threads context to other "Energetic Forum" threads with questions or comments.

Best Regards,
Glen

This is just another example of Rosemary not correcting a experimentalist doing a "REPLICATION" on the correct schematic thats used in the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 magazine article. It's totally obvious where this came from and used at, and for Rosemary to hide the facts plus limiting or omitting the posted for the public to view image attachments, shows her true one sided intentions with her personal FORUM. 

FTC

[TinselKoala]

Thank you for that, Fuzzy. It is totally typical of Ainslie and her typical supporters not to give credit for the hard work of others, and simply to take what they will and claim it's their own, or that they "came up with it" independently.

So, clearly my point is supported. The original Quantum schematic does NOT work as she claimed, but it DOES work, it just makes the inverted duty cycle with the components specified. It's too bad that gmeast wasted all that time, because as I show in my latest video, a simple 4049 hex inverter allows the use of the ORIGINAL component values and gives BOTH the inverted AND the non-inverted cycles, available to drive heavier loads even than the  555 can drive, and no fooling around or altered component values was needed, just the single chip and its connecting wires.

The alteration of the schematic to make it DIFFERENT FROM THE PUBLICATION THAT CARRIES AINSLIE'S NAME means that it is no longer the same project any more. You had better watch out, Wilby the troll will come after you for doing that. No...wait....he only objects when I use a different component. Others can use whatever they like and do whatever they like, as long as they get the results they WANT.

The "errors" in the schematic have been pointed out TO AINSLIE since 2009, there, gmeast. Why didn't she tell you that the schematic in the article was incorrect? Have you thought about that very much? ANd you do realize that there is YET ANOTHER big lie concerning that schematic -- the missing recirculation diode. Was it used or not? If so, why has it not been corrected on the diagram, since it has been TEN YEARS since the article was published under AINSLIE's good name? If not, why is she now claiming it was used but not included on the published schematic that you are working from, there, gmeast? Thought about that, much?

But no matter, the point is well made, YET AGAIN, by Ainslie's own builder, and in such a mendacious way that gmeast cannot even admit that I was right, and I remain right about the original circuit's inverted duty cycle.

I remain right about a lot of other things concerning that circuit and its performance as well. But if gmeast wants to waste his time by not doing his homework to find out what has transpired before now, that is certainly up to him.

I just want them to stop going around claiming that I am wrong while they are busy proving I am right. It really makes them look rather bad. Don't bother to try a replication, just use whatever circuit you like that gives you the results YOU WANT. Isn't that the way science is done?

[TinselKoala]

A screenshot of the CURRENT EDIT of the Ainslie daft manuscript up on her forum right now, and then a shot from what was up a few days ago.

Note several things in the old shot:
6 x 12 volt batteries claimed in the description of the test.
The purple battery voltage trace has its baseline marker edited out so one cannot tell where the baseline is (unless you know what the offset value in the channels settings box means).
And the scope's calculated MEAN for the battery trace is..... looking very closely at the figure.......... 49.9 volts MAXIMUM. 

One of three things therefore must be true:
1. Six batteries were NOT used; rather, only 4 were used, and the reason for this is not given (but I know what it is).
-OR-
2. The purple trace does not represent the battery voltage at all, but rather is perhaps the mosfet drain trace, which would give similar voltage values (but not the overall waveshape).
-OR-
3. The Ainslie batteries are severely depleted in their charge, indicating well under 9 volts each.

Of course we are assuming again that the schematic is reported correctly... something which is increasingly in doubt.

Regardless of the explanation, it is clear that this entire section of the daft manuscript is invalidated, since the conclusions drawn depend on there being 72 volts applied, without failing a mosfet, and without showing battery drain... and none of this is compatible with the 49.9 volts shown as the battery maximum "mean" on the scopeshot.

And of course there is also the egregious removal of the baseline indicator, by the most selective compression artefact in the known universe. THIS, they forgot to replace in the new edit. That smoking gun just keeps popping up, doesn't it. AND of course, milliseconds and microseconds, who cares, they both start with "m" so they must be equivalent, right?

Now that Ainslie has noted our posting of this "error" a couple of days ago, she's "edited" the paper to say "4" batteries were used. With no explanation or retraction. Just cover it up and it will go away, right? I wonder what ELSE is under Ainslie's filthy rugs.

But the internet never forgets, nor does it forgive.