Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Magluvin]

I think I got the wiring of the rotor figured out. Im going to draw it up when I figure out the exact sequence.

There are 23 windings and 23 brush connections. So if we start at 12 oclock, first winding goes outward, at an angle, then comes back in on the other side. Once we do this till it comes back to the starting point, there are 6 loops in series, but at that end, it passes up the first connection of the start winding because of the odd no. of windings and connections. ;] So it passes up 12 oclock and makes another round. I believe 4 times till the final wind is back to 2 oclock.   Well you get the idea.   Ill be mapping it out to see if all that is correct.  There might be some skipping as in after the first 6 winds, the next wind past 12 oclock, might not be the winding right after the start. Its times like these that an ohm meter can read beyond .1 ohm is a beautiful thing.. ;]  Also great for finding the shorted part on a supply leg without desoldering much. ;]

Mags

[poynt99]

Thanks TK.

Rose's drawing makes a little more sense now that you've identified some of the items.

And by "making sense", I'm not inferring that her understanding of the way things are actually connected is correct.

[TinselKoala]

You are welcome.

I've been pointing this out for some time, but I guess because of her scrawled lettering it was hard to see just how discrepant these cartoons are, when compared to either the _claimed_ circuit or the _actual_ circuit used.

Of course we have no idea of the actual circuit used to make the measurements in the papers; the only circuit that we are sure about is the one shown in the demo video, since we have the actual photos of that device. Not the mendacious one shown by the presenter in the video, but the one ACTUALLY used on the apparatus.

But there is another, astounding discrepancy that has been noted before but is not getting the attention it deserves, because IT ALSO COMPLETELY INVALIDATES both daft manuscripts perpetrated by Ainslie.

I refer, of course, to the positioning of the Black output lead from her Function Generator.

In EVERY actual photograph of the apparatus, both the single mosfet version and the 5-mosfet version, the Black FG lead can clearly be seen to be hooked up to the circuit's common ground point along with the reference leads of all the oscilloscope probes.

Yet in the schematics in the papers, all versions in both papers ...... evidently drawn and published AFTER this was pointed out ...... these schematics all show the FG Black lead (marked " - " ) connected on the transistor side of the current viewing shunt resistor. Schematics published prior to the criticism she received about the FG lead placement in the video do not show the Black FG lead connection at all. Only AFTER it was determined that the placement of the FG Black lead on the common ground allowed a current path to bypass the CVR, did Ainslie claim that the lead was located correctly and only then did the "correct" schematics appear.

Yet it is perfectly plain in the Video Demo that the FG is not connected in this correct manner. And in photos of her single mosfet device, ditto.

There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the data collected for the reports were taken with the FG lead in the position indicated in the schematics; in fact lots of evidence indicate that they were not, and that Ainslie and her cohorts never even considered placing the Black lead correctly until AFTER the error was poynted out.

Ainslie continually refers people to these manuscripts as if they should contain something important or significant. They do not. But what they do contain is a mishmash of error, mendacity, ignorance, and fantastic delusion. The data is incorrectly gathered, improperly analysed, falsified, and the conclusions drawn are not even supported by the data they are based upon. These manuscripts need to be totally retracted, with explanations and apologies from the Ainslie "team" of NERDs. They are blots upon even the _pseudo_scientific landscape, and it is _this fact_ that is important and that must be addressed by Ainslie. If she wants credibility she MUST retract the current set of reports, since they are so full of error and mendacity and unjustified fantasy, and she MUST repeat the experiments correctly and publish her data properly. Or..... she should STFU and fade away.

It's amusing to see her continuing her attacks against Bryan Little. I'd really like to begin corresponding with him, to let him know how his good name is being libelled by the idiot ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie. Can anyone tell me just who this is and how I can contact him?

[gmeast]

You are welcome.

I've been pointing this out for some time, but I guess because of her scrawled lettering it .........................................................................................

It's amusing to see her continuing her attacks against Bryan Little. I'd really like to begin corresponding with him, to let him know how his good name is being libelled by the idiot ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie. Can anyone tell me just who this is and how I can contact him?

Hi TK,


I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person???


GME

[Magluvin]

Hi TK,


I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person? ??


GME

Isnt it possible that you heard wrong? Or what you were told is wrong?

Did you know that Rose is actually Barbara Streisand?    

Mags