Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

OK, maybe it's time for a quick review.

Tar Baby is constructed with the exact circuit and specified components used, or rather claimed to have been used, by the NERDs in the daft manuscripts.

Tar Baby produces the same feedback oscillations and the same negative mean power product as Ainslie's original NERD circuit.

Tar Baby's batteries do discharge.

Ainslie has sent her own exact device off to an independent lab in the USA for testing. This lab also found that the mean negative power product was easy to reproduce, but that their batteries also discharged. They sent the apparatus back with some additional components and suggestions for Ainslie to test. So far she has not complied, and has not made public the details of the lab's report, except to admit that their batteries did discharge and that her major claim was disconfirmed.

Ainslie's daft manuscripts exist in many multiple "edits" on various internet sites and these versions do not agree. There are discrepancies involving claimed power dissipation, battery capacity, circuit behaviour, schematics used, equipment used, and lack of correspondence between the theoretical explanations given and the actual circuit's wiring.

Anslie perpetrated a deliberate fraud and deception, from the March 2011 date of the release of the video demonstration of her device, until late April 2011 when the actual wiring schematic used was revealed by .99.... and she has recently expressed regret that it was revealed "so soon"; in other words, she deliberately lied and carried on an internet discussion of over 400 forum comments concerning a circuit that was NOT actually used, for almost a month, and sought to continue the deception longer.

Ainslie has refused access to her original data and spreadsheets. She has attempted to keep secret her scope shots, scattering them about over years and multiple forum threads and even multiple forums instead of publishing them in one easy place. She has refused to cooperate with investigators, instead frequently descending into her sarcastic and hypocritical personal insulting and denigrations whenever she is faced with hard questions for her to answer. She has repeatedly shown her inability to do or understand even the simplest mathematics, she has no calculus, and she does not bother to do the simplest fact-checking of her outrageous claims, for example calling a date in July first a "solstice" and then an "equinox", or claiming that "there is no such animal as inductive reactance".  She has made dozens if not hundreds of similar, absurd, easily refutable claims over the years and I have most of them, and their refutations, recorded in my comprehensive Ainslie database collection.

The earlier Quantum COP>17 circuit has been thoroughly investigated years ago and all work by several workers published publicly. Yet Ainslie deliberately, overtly and specifically refused to make her current builder, gmeast, aware of this prior work, all of which is easily accessible in the public record.

Gmeast rejected the NERD circuit as unworkable by inspection, I believe, and decided to work on the earlier Quantum circuit with all its flaws.

In spite of this, gmeast went on to build and test the COP>17 circuit.... and found, from the beginning, that there were many problems. The 555 timer as published does not work as claimed. The circuit as published includes no recirculation diode. The circuit as published, when driven at the specified parameters (rather than the flipped, nearly always on duty cycle produced by the published 555 circuit) does not produce the substantial heating claimed, or in fact any significant heat at a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle. So gmeast substantially altered the circuit to get some kind of heat result. He uses a gate driver, a different kind of load, a recirculation diode, a much longer ON duty cycle (25 percent instead of the claimed 3.7 percent of the Quantum article) and operates at a higher frequency than Ainslie's Quantum report. And he is making basic errors in his power computations still. Using his reported numbers and making the calculations correctly, his device is not achieving OU performance at all, much less the COP >17 claimed by Ainslie for the original experiment. And his batteries are running down nevertheless.

In short, every major claim of Ainslie in both the Quantum article and the two NERD daft manuscripts has been refuted or shown to be spurious, by several different workers and laboratories on _Both Sides_ of the issue. Supporters have been unable to reproduce her claims and in fact have found that they are impossible using the circuits and protocols described. These refutations have happened with Ainslie's very own apparatus, with other, identical apparatus, with and without Ainslie's personal guidance, and all around the world. Nobody has been able to produce any real experimental support for any of Ainslie's claims EXCEPT that it is possible to make an oscilloscope compute a negative mean power product when certain basic precautions are not taken to assure uncontaminated signal data. This has been confirmed many times, in simulations and in hardware, by many people and there is even a pocket "OU" demonstrator that runs without batteries.... the Altoid... that can be used to demonstrate this negative mean power measurement, and a negatively accumulating energy integral measurement, anytime anywhere on demand. The _measurements_ are easy to replicate, and the meaning of them is well understood... and it's not "free energy" or overunity performance.

[poynt99]

Seriously? They've kicked you out completely? What an abrupt change in her attitude.

Yep.

[DreamThinkBuild]

Hi Poynt,

That is just wrong.  After putting your time and effort in trying to help her she just blocks anybody that poses a different view than her own.

I just want to say I appreciate all the hard work you did trying to get to the bottom of the circuit. You truly are a professional, being able to have the patience to stick through this long.

Soon GMEast will say one wrong thing or a number won't match and he will be kicked out next.

[poynt99]

Thanks for the comments DreamThinkBuild.

No one will ever likely be kicked from Rose's playground as long as they post "hopeful" tidbits or are neutral. I was the "neutral" posing questions to the "hopeful", and the "Admin" didn't like that. It's understandable of course, because gmeast was beginning to have uncontrolled fits and I don't think Rose wanted to lose him. After all, he represents 50% of the regular posters there now that I'm gone.

[mrsean2k]

After all, he represents 50% of the regular posters there now that I'm gone.

Well using standard mathematics, perhaps so. But with Greg's improved variant, you in fact represent 217.9000452% or 23.01551% depending.