Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

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.

Yep... now the reasons for my taking screenshots of the problematic Ainslie posts become clear.

Ainslie has a long history of revising history; she will go back months or even years if allowed by the software, and edit posts that have already been responded to, deleting them entirely or substantially changing the meanings. She can make simple quotations "disappear" as above and deny she made them, but she cannot dispute a screenshot image unless she wants to accuse someone of graphics fakery in addition to her lying about what the image shows.
Unfortunately I was too late in this instance; I don't have a screenshot of that post.... but I'd sure like one.

[orbut 3000]

Yes, it seems to be gone. I found it in the 'troll spin'-thread.

[poynt99]

The ONLY simulations that have been able to replicate these results depend on the addition of copious wattage introduced via the switch from an alternate energy supply source.

No Rose, you are mistaken.

The FG in the one simulation of your exact circuit contributed no more than 3W when the negative power was on the order of -100W.

In the other two circuits I simulated that exhibited substantial negative power (my variation and the low power design), there is no FG present at all. Aside from the FG, there is no other possible "alternate energy supply source".

So in fact, THIS still stands:

"It means absolutely nothing in terms of proof that any of these circuits charge their batteries, or supply more heating energy in a load compared to what is supplied.

You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth Rosemary. The truth is that these measurements are erroneous and most certainly don't represent the actual power being used by the batteries. That I would bet my house on. Would you? No, I doubt very much you would."

[evolvingape]

More of the same...

The perpetual assault on the open source energy research community continues...

Which means that standard assumptions and standard measurement protocols ERR - or there is an alternate energy supply source that has not - heretofore - been factored into the measurement of energy.  At its least this question requires a thorough appraisal.

Kindest regards
Rosie"

The illusion of choice in the quotation above fails to mention the evidentially proven third option:

The data set was collected and analysed by untrained and incompetent pseudoscientists. The data set provided as proof of claim in fact falsifies the conclusions at every key point. The data, and the conclusions based upon it, are spurious:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

[poynt99]

The data set was collected and analysed by untrained and incompetent pseudoscientists. The data set provided as proof of claim in fact falsifies the conclusions at every key point. The data, and the conclusions based upon it, are spurious:

Indeed, the option 3 you presented is the correct one in this case.