Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

@Fuzzy: thanks for that, I know that you worked very hard and as I've said before you've got the most comprehensive set of experiments and shared results that I know about. Ainslie's behaviour towards you especially is really outrageous, she should be grateful to you for what you did.

@MH: Who knows what will happen. As long as she doesn't change, the situation won't change; there will be new blogs, new forum threads, new gullible victims who are hopeful and who believe her statements. That is the absolute pisser about this whole affair: she has learned nothing. Learning is gauged by change in behaviour..... and she isn't going to change.

@.99: your efforts have been truly heroic. I can't imagine how you've held onto your equanimity. I've been reading the old thread that polln8r linked... all that happened when I was "on a break" and so I missed it when it first happened... but you were telling her the same things about that circuit then that you have been telling her now about this one ... and she pretended to grasp it then, too.... but as we all know now, she was just stringing you along, secretly mocking "Team Classical".  She even mentions calculating inductive reactance, three years ago.... and three days ago she denies that there is any such animal as inductive reactance. I fear that you have been spinning your wheels and that she is continuing to laugh at you behind your back.

I want to thank all three of you for your efforts with Ainslie. I have learned from each of you, I know a lot more about electronics than I did three years ago.... and I know a lot more about Ainslie, and psychology, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't know if there is any "solution"... and I was shocked to read about "Popper John" in the noble gas plasma power thread... To learn that there is more than one "Ainslie" type out there, fooling people and making money at it, is very depressing to me.

Well.... carry on, then. But if .99 doesn't continue, she will proclaim "victory" over "Team Classical" which "cannot explain" her famous oscillations.... even though they have been explained over and over. The explanations she's received don't fit her "thesis"... so they are wrong, QED.

I still want to see her video, though, demonstrating how she got those scope traces.... maybe she will actually be forced to admit that she was wrong about that, at least. But... I also want her "papers"withdrawn, since they are so full of flaws and outright lies... and I know that's not going to happen. They are just being ignored on Rossi's JNP and that's good--- maybe they are getting read and rejected by the readers, if not by the "editors" and "peer reviewers", as the word-salad prevarications that they are.

As far as the last suggestion from .99 goes.... the laboratory in the USA is supposed to have sent her some "special resistors". I cannot imagine what these must be --- unless they are non-inductive shunt current viewing resistors, and/or some kind of calibrated load resistor. She has not discussed these resistors or the proposed testing that the lab has requested she do, as far as I know. I think that this lab has rejected her claims-- certainly they have rejected the main claim of non-discharging batteries--  and have sent along some kit for her to try to prove to herself how her errors arise.... but she isn't having any of that, which is why we haven't heard any discussion about their findings, their suggestions, or the parts they sent for her to try, or why.

[TinselKoala]

She's still lying, and to her builder too.

Look at this... .now she's claiming that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article was downloaded and pasted into her circuit "off the internet". 

What year was that article published?

And where on the internet, at that time, could anyone find this NON STANDARD representation of the 555... with the EXACT COMPONENT VALUES to give the EXACT INVERTED DUTY CYCLE......

Nowhere, that's where. And the Author of any paper or article is fully responsible for ALL information in that publication, unless there has been a misprint on the publisher's part.

The timer in the article was the timer Ainslie used. The duty cycle was inverted from what she has claimed. EVERYONE who has built that circuit knows that the cycle is inverted, by now. 100 pages indeed--- arguing with people who DENIED THE TRUTH of my finding on the first day I tested that circuit in 2009. And STILL the issue is not rested... because of Ainslie's continuing mendacity.


And I believe GMEAST has already discovered this 555 inversion for himself, which makes her current post all the more silly.

[TinselKoala]

Incidentally...... is that safe?     


INCIDENTALLY, it is now Sunday Evening in the USA. We have been waiting since last MONDAY for the promised video showing the solution to the scopeshot issue illustrated in the second daft manuscript's Figure 2 and other similar figures. How is it possible that a mosfet is provided with a +12 volt signal to its gate--- yet no current flows through the CVR?

Ainslie has failed, yet again, to provide something that she PROMISED TO PROVIDE by this weekend.



Oh.... I forgot.... I still have my NERD Test Preventer running.... maybe I should turn it off.





Naah......

[MileHigh]

"Danger of the capacitor getting overcharged."

Ha ha ha...  Rosie Posie talks about capacitors erroneously.

TK:

Don't fret, I think it was about a year ago now that ZeroFossilFuel claimed that "within a week" he was sure that he would have his RomeroUK replication self running!

MileHigh

[picowatt]

Someone should probably  throw her a bone and tell her to use capacitors with a proper voltage rating.  Also, it should be noted that .99 specified a film type cap and that short leads should be used for the caps, CSR resistor(s), and the connection between the battery negative and the CSR.

However, are we actually supposed to believe that a "team" exists and that no one on that "team" knows anything about using capacitors?  Is there anyone on that team that even understands what .99 was discussing, or the effects of inductive reactance on the measurements?  Not knowing how to use capacitors or specify their voltage rating does not do much to instill confidence in any data from any upcoming tests. 

One would think that a "team" put together to perform tests and measurements on an electronic circuit would consist of at least one person qualified in the field of electronics.  Any such person qualified in the field of electronics would also agree that there is a problem indicated in FIG 3, 6, and 7 regarding Q1.  SInce the Q1 issue has not been addressed for many months, it must be assumed that there is no one qualified in electronics on any "team". 

If there actually is a "team", it sounds like the blind leading the blind.

   ...and there are none so blind as those that will not see...