Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

This one has taken quite a plot twist indeed.

Soon she will hold you responsible for nuking the whales.

[Magluvin]

So let me get this straight. For the record. 

A video, that Rose says she didnt upload, and claims Poynt stole it from her computer and he published it, but this video is on one of her youtube accounts? 

Any dates as to when that vid was put on youtube vs when she claimed the vid was stolen?     that might clear some things up. 

Mags

[TinselKoala]

So let me get this straight. For the record. 

A video, that Rose says she didnt upload, and claims Poynt stole it from her computer and he published it, but this video is on one of her youtube accounts? 

Any dates as to when that vid was put on youtube vs when she claimed the vid was stolen?     that might clear some things up. 

Mags

The dates of the uploads are there on her channels. Just click the links above and you'll be able to see them all, review them for content and accuracy, and check the dates of upload.And today she claimed .99 "rifled" them from her stolen computer. I think it was some weeks ago that she claimed her home was burglarized and her computer stolen.

[TinselKoala]

to add...

"Dear Reader,

Just as a reminder to you all - there are six of us who unequivocally support the evidence of over unity as detailed in our papers - the links given hereunder.  Notwithstanding Byran Little (TK) et al's vociferous claims to the contrary there are NO errors in those papers.  There are MINOR errors in the published papers and they persist - despite our best efforts at notification of required corrections. 

Liar. None, not a SINGLE ONE of your alleged co-authors will now support you in your claims. "Unequivocally" should simply be "unvocally" because nobody but you, Ainslie, is speaking out "supporting" your claims of overunity. There are MANY errors in those daft manuscripts and I have pointed many of them out. The cartoon drawings in the second daft manuscript, for example, were drawn BEFORE Ainslie realized her wiring error and so do not correspond to ANY of the claimed or actually used schematics for the device. But one would have to be able to READ a schematic .... and to read Ainslie's idiosyncratic, egotistic scrawls.... in order to see that, and one would have to understand circuitry to be able to tell the significance of that HOWLING error... which means that the "explanation" given is an explanation of something that didn't exist at all: an apparatus wired differently than ANY we were shown and clearly different from that used in the reported apparatus.

Those results show proof of measurements that fly in the face of standard prediction. 

No they don't, you fool! How could a simulator have gotten the same measurements if that were true? You are sadly deficient in the thinking department if you fall for That lie from Ainslie. The measurements are fully predictable and completely explained, and they have nothing to do with any actual overunity performance. They are mostly _artefacts_ of the way the data were collected.

We have a measured negative wattage that is supported with the use of sophisticated and calibrated equipment. 

And so do I. In fact my measurements of that phenomenon occur in at least three different systems, and they are even better than your own because I actually show the decreasing energy integral right on the DSO screen: My Tar Baby replication of the NERD circuit, the .99-designed Altoid Battery-Less Pocket Negative Power Demonstrator, and my SassyClassE sstc. These measurements cannot be used to support a claim of overunity performance, as they are spurious results of trying to measure a harmonically rich oscillation with cheap, passive probes and ordinary current-sensing resistors, with inadequate low-pass filtering of the spurious induced voltages in the measuring resistor and other inductances.

Such a measurement defeats Gustav Kirchhoff's unity requirements and points to the evidence of an alternate energy supply source to the conventional supplies vested in the Higgs Boson.

You wouldn't know a Higgs Boson if you woke up next to one. And Kirchhoff is rolling in his grave, laughing at your faulty conclusions based on bad data.

These results were predicted in terms of a field model that proposes Dark Matter to be the actual material source of energy.

No they weren't. Ainslie's "model" is a mishmash of misconception, entirely divorced from reality, and is refuted daily by the very machine you are staring at right now. Electricity is UNDERSTOOD, far better than you believe, and computers are just one example of how well it is understood. The very existence of the electronic computer proves that Ainslie's "field model" is a pantload of horse hockey.

A broad brushstroke of that model is included in the second paper.  Links to both are given hereunder.


IF THIS WERE TRUE - IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF  OF THE THESIS THEN THIS IS THE SCOPE OF THAT POTENTIAL IN THE THESIS...

1 - we would be able to defeat gravity
2 - we would be able to generate electric energy at no cost at all
3 - applications would not pollute our atmosphere
4 - we would be able to both halt and REVERSE the effects of global warming

If pigs had wings and a pilot's license, they would be able to defeat gravity too, but you never will. None of your "thesis" is even remotely near being true at all.

WHAT IS STANDING BETWEEN THIS KNOWLEDGE AND ITS POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS ARE

1 - a dedicated reach by competing energy suppliers to eradicate all knowledge of this
2 - effected largely in their efforts to trash my name and the technology along with it

Nope. The "energy suppliers" don't know anything about you, Ainslie, and would just laugh at you if they did. And if you had any "technology" there's no way that it could or would be suppressed at all. Your name is being trashed because you are a proven liar, an arrogant ignorant fool, and you don't have the sense to shut up about your delusional "model" and your ridiculous "papers". 

These are the facts.  Consider - if you will - the cost of some 8 or so trolls - spending ENORMOUS efforts and time at this if - indeed - there were no truths in these claims of ours.  We are NONE OF US trying to patent - to solicit funds - nor even to claim a discovery. 

Stop right there. Facts? You are a stranger to them entirely. You did too try to patent your claim and you even went for some time claiming you "had a patent" on your "technology". In fact as you may recall, that was where I came in: when I discovered that you did NOT have a patent at all and were simply lying about that. You also applied for and attempted to claim no fewer than THREE Monetary prizes and awards for your "overunity" lie. You've tried to promote your "discovery" by attempting to get papers published, and by blogging and forum posting and your incessant trolling.  In addition.... you have no "we" at all. There is just you, Ainslie, just you. Yet Again, you've made a statement that is chock full of lies from start to end.

We are all entirely satisfied that the physics is incorporated in the standard model - with a small variation at best. We have done our best to bring this to the academic forum - but have failed.

This technology cannot survive the attack that is currently being launched.  Not only is this an abuse of open source - but it we are also now being shown the risk associated in ignoring this information - as shown in the devastation wrought by Super Storm Sandy.  I appeal to you all to ignore the manifold protestations by the trolls on OU.com and to pay heed to the simple reality of experimental evidence submitted  precisely as required through publication in an academic journal.

Your rejections haven't sunk in, have they. To be REJECTED in your submission to those academic journals means your "work" does not meet the standards of rigor required, your presentation is non-standard and severely flawed, and it's evident that you have no understanding of your topic. You can't even do a simple math problem, when every freshman physics student in the WORLD knows that calculus is a prerequisite for understanding even elementary physics concepts and problems. Your rejections are entirely deserved and indicate just what you don't want to admit: your "work" is bogus, from start to finish, through and through, and belongs in one place only: the recycling bin.

At the risk of sounding somewhat melodramatic - I believe our survival as a species depends on the advancement of this knowledge, which knowledge in no way belongs to anyone at all.  It is knowledge that was forged by our greats and belongs to EVERYONE.

Kindest regards
Rosie"

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2

At the risk of sounding "somewhat melodramatic".... Ainslie here once again shows her egotism and arrogance, her paranoid delusional system, and her amazing ignorance of reality.

[poynt99]

Where was that posted orbut? I could not find it on her site.

Maybe she has deleted it?

Anyway, the youtube user "aetherevarising" clearly uploaded that video, not me. March 19, 2010 actually.