Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie, you are so laughably wrong in all of those contentions that you do not even deserve the consideration of a detailed reply. Your after-the-fact rationalization of your cartoons is particularly telling and idiotic. Go ahead and hook all your mosfets in parallel. If they are properly laid out without long interconnecting leads there will be NO OSCILLATIONS. So are you going to claim that the long leads are necessary for overunity performance? What a mendacious and ignorant fool you are.

You cannot provide the raw data from your "experiments". Your scopeshots show traces that could only happen with blown or miswired or missing mosfets. You claim that some trials show no current flow from the battery when the scopeshots for those trials clearly DO show large current drains. The experiments AS SHOWN IN YOUR DEMO VIDEO and in every other confirmed sighting of your apparatus, even the single mosfet version,  were done with the Black FG lead hooked to the common circuit ground along with all scope references, but BOTH the conflicting circuit diagrams you mendaciously included in your daft manuscripts show it on the other side of the CVR. This fact alone invalidates ALL your data from the current viewing "shunt" as you erroneously call it. Your batteries UNQUESTIONABLY DO DISCHARGE over the course of several daily trials AS REFLECTED IN YOUR OWN DATA. You claim to have dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes in one, STILL "PUBLISHED" version of one of the manuscripts and removed that bogus claim without comment in another version. The only independent laboratory ever to see your actual apparatus tested it and reproduced your "negative power" measurements, and they also made correct measurements and told you how to do so, and they also found that the batteries DO DISCHARGE, refuting all your overunity claims. And the water "wasn't actually boiling; there were small bubbles" and the temperature was 64 degrees C, in contrast to the impression you try to give in your manuscripts "bringing water to boil"... when you did no such thing at all.

All of these problems completely invalidate the reports of the experiments. You cannot refute any of these problems that I note, because ANYONE can look at the manuscripts and scopeshots and your blog posts made ON THE DAYS OF THE ACTUAL TRIALS and see that I am completely correct. Your "work" is a bunch of bogosity, not even worthy of a tenth-grade science fair project, and the manuscripts are a total waste of everyone's time and MUST be retracted for the reasons I've given above, and many more. Psychologists and physicists around the world are using your case in their classrooms as an example of pathological pseudoscience at its very worst, albeit in a harmless form.

ETA: The screen shot below was taken in August of 2012. Evidently one of your co-authors is a little behind the times.

[TinselKoala]

Hey, FuzzyTomCat .... is that Donovan Martin, narrating the Demo Video that she "DID NOT UPLOAD" here?

Whoever he is, isn't it funny that he lies about the circuit at least twice , showing the old, single mosfet schematic on paper which doesn't even show the Black FG lead at all, and then telling everyone that all the mosfets are in parallel? I mean, since he's an electronics expert... isn't he?.... he must be lying, because the circuit board is right there in front of him and anyone can see by looking closely that the mosfets aren't all in parallel and that the schematic given doesn't correspond to the experimental setup at all.

0:23: "The circuit diagram before you (taptap) is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup; as you can see. (zooming closer) What we have is, um... Five mosfets in parallel...." and so on.

This is either deliberate mendacity (as Ainslie has apparently already claimed) or clear evidence of total incompetence, as even a casual inspection of the actual apparatus (as opposed to blurry screengrabs from a video) would have revealed the wiring "error" immediately... instead of a month later, full of Ainslie discussing the WRONG circuit in the old "locked" thread here.

So have you ever been able to get hold of Donny, er, Donovan Martin, to ask him about these rather, um.... severe discrepancies in his presentation?

If that is in fact him, of course.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp

Why was one battery removed for the "high heat" demonstration, leaving a 48 volt input supply, done without any explanation or even reference? I know why. It is because the Q1 mosfet would blow out from heat stress if given 72 or probably even 60 volts under the conditions shown. This is the very reason why the 4 additional mosfets, supposed to be in parallel with the first, were added in the first place. But since they aren't in parallel with Q1, the overheating problem persists and so their solution was to drop the input voltage, lessening the current flow and keeping that mosfet within its package limits, during the long fully ON duty cycle times required to obtain high heat in the load.

[Magluvin]

Rosesaidwhat said...

"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..."

If this were true? YES!! Well some of it.  If it were true.    Sounds like you dont know 'if' its true here.

"IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF  OF THE THESIS "

But I thought you already had the evidence? Shown by who? So thus far, your 'thesis' is not made of proof shown by sufficient evidence?? Just if's.

Ring around the Rosie.



MaGsY

[fuzzytomcat]

Hey, FuzzyTomCat .... is that Donovan Martin, narrating the Demo Video that she "DID NOT UPLOAD" here?

Whoever he is, isn't it funny that he lies about the circuit at least twice , showing the old, single mosfet schematic on paper which doesn't even show the Black FG lead at all, and then telling everyone that all the mosfets are in parallel? I mean, since he's an electronics expert... isn't he?.... he must be lying, because the circuit board is right there in front of him and anyone can see by looking closely that the mosfets aren't all in parallel and that the schematic given doesn't correspond to the experimental setup at all.

0:23: "The circuit diagram before you (taptap) is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup; as you can see. (zooming closer) What we have is, um... Five mosfets in parallel...." and so on.

This is either deliberate mendacity (as Ainslie has apparently already claimed) or clear evidence of total incompetence, as even a casual inspection of the actual apparatus (as opposed to blurry screengrabs from a video) would have revealed the wiring "error" immediately... instead of a month later, full of Ainslie discussing the WRONG circuit in the old "locked" thread here.

So have you ever been able to get hold of Donny, er, Donovan Martin, to ask him about these rather, um.... severe discrepancies in his presentation?

If that is in fact him, of course.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp

Why was one battery removed for the "high heat" demonstration, leaving a 48 volt input supply, done without any explanation or even reference? I know why. It is because the Q1 mosfet would blow out from heat stress if given 72 or probably even 60 volts under the conditions shown. This is the very reason why the 4 additional mosfets, supposed to be in parallel with the first, were added in the first place. But since they aren't in parallel with Q1, the overheating problem persists and so their solution was to drop the input voltage, lessening the current flow and keeping that mosfet within its package limits, during the long fully ON duty cycle times required to obtain high heat in the load.

Hi TK,

As far as I know Donovan Martin is not the person narrating that Demo Video, as from what I'm told is not a person of color .... the camera operator for the video though is a ......

Riaan Theron
Riaan1906@gmail.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron?feature=watch
http://za.linkedin.com/pub/riaan-theron/3a/a5a/82b
http://www.animationsa.org/community/press-releases/liezel/opinion-piece-riaan-theron-developing-your-own-style
http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron/feed
http://www.animationsa.org/users/sae-institute-cape-town
http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/3D_Animation
http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/Animation
http://www.filmcrewcentral.com/profile/RiaanTheron

I'm sure the name rings a GONG as one of the authors on the last two rags that Rosemary submitted as some kind of scientific nick nack used for a door prop .... remember 

Best,
Fuzzy

[TinselKoala]

Ah, thanks, Fuzzy. I know I remember hearing Ainslie refer to "Donny" at some point. I thought the narrator was he. Who, then, is responsible for the outright lies in the video that I have noted and quoted above? Why is the video still allowed to be posted, without any retraction of those manifest lies?
I know you don't know the answer, except that it's a result of Ainslie's own mendacity and disregard for truth and accuracy.



Meanwhile, the statements from the Red Queen of Trolls continue:

Errors of measurement may be tricky to prove.  Essentially one would need to factor in the complexities of reactance. BUT when we do so the problems persist.  We are left with the evidence of a negative wattage REGARDLESS of those factors.  And a negative wattage is the proof positive that there is EXTRA energy generated away from the supply.  At which point - any serious scientist would revisit his ASSUMPTIONS and try and find out what the hell is going on. 

But not so - if you belong to TEAM TROLL.  Here their scientific solution - strictly in line with the well rehearsed requirements of their Medieval Mind Set - is to scoff - deny - traduce - victimise ... in every possible way - ANYONE WHO PERSISTS IN CLAIMING THAT A NEGATIVE WATTAGE HAS PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE.  Well.  The sad news that this system of denial works.  And that is notwithstanding the dire need of all of mankind - to explore this evidence and its potentials.

Well. It seems Ainslie persists in claiming that "negative wattage is the proof positive that there is EXTRA energy generated away from the supply". Therefore she must agree that my two devices: Tar Baby, and the Altoid pocket demonstrator..... are PROVING POSITIVELY that I am generating extra energy away from the supply.... thus, my two devices are OVERUNITY devices, according to her criteria.

Since MY DEVICES are ready to go anywhere anytime, and they are self contained, and they can demonstrate this negative wattage using AINSLIE'S OWN EXACT "standard" MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, and can do it WITH OR WITHOUT BATTERIES, even........ surely even she must agree that Tar Baby and Altoid qualify, in spades, for the same OverUnity prizes that she tried to claim. Ainslie cannot demonstrate the validity of her claims of battery non-discharge or "no current flow" when there is current flow shown on her scopeshots, or a mosfet not turning on in the conditions shown in her scopeshots.... but I can substantiate EVERY claim I've made about Altoid and Tar Baby, and both Altoid and Tar Baby are complete, stand-alone systems that can be packed up and sent off for side by side testing against ANY OTHER DEVICE ANYWHERE, and most particularly the Ainslie NERD circuit.

Got that, AINSLIE?  Your Foot-In-Mouth statement is an acknowledgement that EVERY claim you made depends on your "negative wattage measurement", and since Tar Baby and Altoid make the same "negative wattage" when measured the same way as NERD..... well....

DO THE MATH (tm RA).

Note well what happens if AINSLIE now chooses to deny the "PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE" of Tar Baby's and Altoid's "NEGATIVE WATTAGE". She becomes an honorary member of what she calls so disparagingly her "Team Troll".

Somebody needs to invent a foot extractor and sell one to Rosemary Ainslie. How can she breathe at all, with her foot shoved so far down her own throat?