Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

the batteries DEPLETE when, according to the measurements -  it SHOULD NOT.

What Ainslie...or Maria Krebs or whoever she claims to be now.... actually must realise is this:

The batteries DEPLETE when, according to the claims made in the manuscripts, they SHOULD NOT. Thus, the claims made in the manuscripts are WRONG.

Further, since batteries CAN clearly be charged by application of high-frequency currents AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND MAGNITUDE, yet these batteries deplete nevertheless..... we must conclude that the measurements used in the manuscripts ARE IN ERROR.

In fact, as anyone can easily show, and as I proved years ago with the _actual_ COP 17 claimed circuit, one can easily charge up an _external_ battery using exactly the same magic whatever, that Ainslie claims is preventing her _internal_ running battery from discharging. But this is simply transferring charge from one battery to another, incurring significant losses on the way. Neither that system nor the present one can do anything to prevent its own battery from discharging....except perhaps by blowing a mosfet. And this has nothing to do with frequencies and electrolytes and the rest of Ainslie-Krebs's nonsense.

[TinselKoala]

The idiot paranoid delusional ranting of Maria Krebs... or whatever she calls herself this week.... continues apace.

But his time is nearing it's end.  I'm certain of that.  He's dominating the thread posts at OU.com - and trying to imply that he is the ONLY authority available to comment.

This is a lie. I have never implied any such thing, and Krebs... or Ainslie as she likes to be known lately .... cannot provide ANY EVIDENCE for her claim. She lies, once again.

Eventually people will get bored with his rather rampant claims to know all and everything related to matters scientific.

Once again, she lies. Nowhere can she show me claiming " to know all and everything related to matters scientific" or anything like that. Ainslie is a liar and cannot provide support for her libellous accusations against me.

He's an amateur - and a tinkerer - and a boaster - and a brutally self interested sociopath. 

Now the idiot delusional senile ignoramus dares to call me a sociopath. I can prove that she is an idiot, an ignoramus, senile, delusional and much more. She cannot provide any evidence or proof that I am a sociopath. I doubt seriously if she even knows what one is, and I KNOW that she has no psychological qualifications, other than her experience as a patient, to make any kind of diagnosis of anyone, anywhere.

The trouble is that - by his own admission - he is the recipient of expert advice in order to guide his comments related to those matters about which he actually knows little -  if anything.

What an interesting statement. I wonder where that came from. Would a person not be well advised to take expert advice in such a case? Well, we know Ainslie/Krebs doesn't, there are ample examples of her ignoring expert advice because she, in her ignorance, believes she knows better.

The joke is that he freely admits this.  He works as a team and he fronts that team. 

And again she expresses her delusion of persecution with yet another lie. She cannot provide any evidence for her accusation that there is some kind of organised "team" persecuting her, nor that I am now or ever have been any part of any "team" of any kind. Ainslie/Krebs.. is really worried about "teams", so she sees them around every corner. However, she lies yet again, as she cannot provide any evidence for the veracity of her delusional and libellous accusations.

This confrontation is NOT limited to TK.  There's always that team in the background - that are well orchestrated and well paid.  I suspect that Sean and 'The Boss' are the actual authorities in that campaign.  And I'm reasonably certain that their funding is from Oil cartels.

Well, I can tell you this much.... my paycheck seems to be a little late. Four years late, in fact.
Hilarious, isn't it, that she thinks that I am "well paid" and funded by Oil Cartels.... Yep, I keep my laboratory full of fancy new digital equipment well out of sight, pretending to be an impoverished amateur... a tinkerer... a boaster .... when in reality I am the high-powered, well paid frontman for a team paid for by the Oil Cartels and headed by MrSean and The Baas. Her paranoid delusions of persecution and grandeur are right out of a textbook. Yep..... Krebs has really outdone herself .... again.

[TinselKoala]

Now.  TK's entire thread related to this subject - relies on the fiction that our papers claim anything at all related to battery performance.  This is gross misrepresentation and I challenge him to show where, in our paper - this claim is made.

Oh, really, Krebs-Ainslie? Apparently I'm more familiar with your daft manuscripts than you are. I've highlighted just a few places where you talk about battery performance, and I've even highlighted where you lie about your measurements. As I've shown USING YOUR OWN DATA, your batteries did indeed show a definite and consistent loss of voltage over the course of several days of experimentation, entirely consistent with normal rates of discharge and ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR LIES.

And of course your entire set of claims for the various monetary prizes you tried to claim were ENTIRELY BASED on the fiction that your batteries exceeded their rated performance.... which you never tested at all, but promised to do so.... over and over again. In fact the judging criteria which you agreed to...or were about to... included specific tests of battery performance. Now you claim that you haven't been claiming anything related to battery performance? You are indeed deluded. Or perhaps you just don't remember, due to your creeping senility.

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element. This was based on the fact that in all tests and, notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as being anomalous.

More astounding lies about the battery performance.

The question that remains outside the scope of this study, relates to the location of this source of this
energy if it is not, in fact, coming from the battery supply source. This question goes to the heart of a
thesis that was developed around a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. The
relevant aspect of that model is that it requires this oscillation as a result of the exchange of energy that
is supplied by the circuit material. The proposal is that the voltage and the resulting reversing flow of
the induced current from the oscillation itself, is led by an opposite charge to the battery primary supply
and that the material property of charge is from the circuit material itself. These results are measured in
tests that relate to the first part of this two-part paper. What is here intended is to model the current
comprising magnetic dipoles and to show that the circuit paths would then allow that current reversal
without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source.

Are you going to say, now, that that last passage is NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR CIRCUIT? Not trying to explain where your energy that you think is not coming from your batteries, is coming from? Are you going to try to claim that these passages do not refer to battery performance, or that you are NOT claiming that your batteries exceed their rated performance when running your circuit?
You probably will.... after all, we know already that words mean whatever YOU want them to mean, not what the dictionary says they mean. You are an Astounding piece of work.

[mrsean2k]

From one side of RAs cavernous lying gash:

"It seems that every comment I make on this forum is answered by Bryan Little or TK et al.  It's MOST encouraging"

From the other side of her stupid gaping maw, a short while before:

"When I see omission of comments on my posts at OU.com I KNOW I've hit a home run."

Well, which is it Rose, you idiot?

[mrsean2k]

And I see its full steam ahead on your forum - the goto place for CheeseNyts conspiracy theories, or the semi literate sycophancy of AlienWhines.

I command my oil fuelled flying killer monkeys to destroy free energy everywhere.