Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Incredible. The woman is swamped by her own delusions. There are so many lies and false conclusions in that mess of bloviated "refutation" that it's nearly impossible to believe that it came from an adult human being who can dress herself. (Presumably she can do that much, although we have no evidence of it.)

Here's just one of her silly claims:

The argument that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains is REFUTED. Because according to the measurements there should be NO loss of potential difference from the supply. Therefore the measurements are pointing at an anomaly that needs resolution.

But her own actual data of the measured battery voltage REFUTES her silly claim. And most of the rest are just as bad. Even the independent lab testing her own apparatus confirmed "that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains"... because the "measured gains" are no such thing... they are artefacts. The actual battery voltage data tells the tale.


On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a  mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series.

On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.

On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, less than 10 minutes later.

The scopeshots are available for inspection here:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/

In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts.

The next shots I can find are SCRN0361 and SCRN0362, both on May 8, both at 25.1 volts, and I think those might be the latest I have.

I am quoting the scope's computed means, always the highest of the three it gives (mean mean, high mean, low mean, fortune cookie extra).

In short, Ainslie's OWN DATA refute her silly claim that her silly claim has been refuted.

[TinselKoala]

1
We have continuing evidence of an alternate energy supply source in an electric circuit that cannot be explained within conventional physical paradigms.

[/color]FALSE. The measurements that led Ainslie to her specious conclusion were completely modelled in simulators several different times using conventional physical paradigms... about the actual nature of which, Ainslie has no clue. Simply by entering into the sims the physical parameters of the circuit, the exact waveforms and "negative mean power products" were obtained, entirely conventionally and in a completely understood manner, using conventional physical paradigms.

2
It is evident that a solid state switching device is well able to supply electric energy without any cost of energy from a conventional supply source.

[/color]FALSE. No such fact is in evidence at all. IN FACT, the independent laboratory testing Ainslie's very own apparatus confirmed what everybody else has also confirmed: the "conventional supply source" does in fact supply electrical energy to the load of her SS switching device.... and to all other such devices as well.

4
It is also evident that this is NOT due to measurement errors.

[/color]FALSE. The measurements that have been taken are in error NOT in the measurements themselves but rather in what they represent: the claimed current measurement is contaminated by spurious voltages induced by the circuit's wiring and the manner in which the measurements are taken. The battery voltage measurements also suffer from the same defect. All this has been modelled, explained, and fixes have been suggested... and applied by others but not by Ainslie. True measurements of the quantities necessary for accurate power measurements reveal the truth: the batteries do discharge, they do provide power to the load, and there is no gain in efficiency from the feedback oscillations.

5
The implications are that this energy supply source can supplement conventional grid supplies - and that with adequate development - should entirely replace the need for our utility suppliers.

[/color]FALSE. The implications are that the Ainslie team is incompetent and also refuses to acknowledge the true facts of the matter: they have made false conclusions based on a false "thesis" and have made amateurish mistakes in every stage of the process. There is no excess energy, therefore there is no hope of any "supplementing the grid". There is only a mass of Ainslie's self-delusion and mendacity.

6
It is also evident that this news is WIDELY resisted on competing forums based on spurious and irrelevant arguments.

[/color]"This news" is resisted WIDELY, by everyone who has encountered Ainslie sooner or later, because it's simply not true. And the arguments that have been put forth against it are not spurious or irrelevant, quite the contrary. They can be checked and confirmed by anyone who cares enough to do so. Ainslie's claims.... cannot.

[mrsean2k]

What are your qualifications @ysw?


Last time you were here, you claimed you were a professional. How so? Just a list of your qualifications, that doesn't compromise your anonymity, does it?

[fuzzytomcat]

@All

What is interesting is what is not referenced.  This should put you in the picture better.

What I see is a trail of "SLIME" from a meal sent to us from the slug dame .... any one here what to have another bite of Rosemary's cooking ??

Go back under that rock with your idiot friends and collaborators ....

[TinselKoala]

@All

What is interesting is what is not referenced.  This should put you in the picture better.

On the contrary, your spam is not interesting, as it is a moldy rehash of Ainslie's mistaken and mendacious claims. As I have indicated in my post above WITH FACTS, the claims made are spurious and false.

What is interesting is that you also share the same characteristics as Ainslie herself: you lack the ability to reason correctly, you are ignorant of your topic, you refuse to educate yourself, you are uncritical of absurd claims without evidence, you are overweeningly arrogant and refuse to accept clear and irrefutable facts when they are presented to you, and you do not know how to, or choose not to, engage in a reasonable scientific discussion. You also deny the reality of data that does not fit your preconceived and incorrect "thesis" and you simply lie about what has been done and how it has been measured. In short, you are a typical sock puppet of Ainslie.

There is one thing for certain: You are not heating your home, or even making tea or oxtail soup, with anything like an Ainslie circuit. In fact.... you are still hooked up to the national grid, aren't you, instead of running off of your perpetually charged batteries.