Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Magluvin]

What an astounding and amazingly incredible fool she is. Literally in-credible, as in completely NON-credible.

It would be better for her to just keep talking chicken licken and pickle stories than to even mention her papers, circuit or batteries.  Not that any of it is good. Just one is better than the worst.

Mags

[TinselKoala]

Spamming troll, trolling spam. Rose Maria Krebs-Ainslie proves me right again: she is a lousy poet, with her insulting "doggeral" (sic) and her reliance on sycophantic sock puppets to run her little errands. Did she have retainers like that back in the Joburg days? Or were three-in-a-bed quite enough for her then?

Poor slapper... she is really overstating things. Here, there and everywhere.

[evolvingape]

Oi idiot,

'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'

'they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all'

Both those statements mean the same thing, and have been proven false by your own data, which shows...

BATTERY VOLTAGE REDUCING OVER TIME = DISCHARGE OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE SUPPLY!

[TinselKoala]

Why do you continue to post those lies?

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

That is a baldfaced lie, as shown by Ainslie's own scope shots with time stamps and her real-time blogging. The batteries WERE  NOT USED at a level of 20 Watts for five hours EACH WORKING DAY (five days a week by normal standards) FOR 10 MONTHS.... they were used intermittently a couple of hours a day, one or two days a week IF THAT MUCH, over the course of a college semester. There is NO EVIDENCE that Ainsile did what she claims, and there is SOLID EVIDENCE that the usage schedule is what I say. Where are scopeshots that indicate five consecutive days of usage? Nowhere. Where are the scopeshots that show such usage, during EACH OF THE TEN MONTHS Ainslie claims to have used them? Nowhere. There ARE, however, solid sequences, consecutively numbered automatically  by the oscilloscope, that show highly intermittent usage of a few hours on a few days during a few months. The EVIDENCE does not support the usage schedule Ainslie claims.

, 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.

That is ANOTHER BALDFACED LIE, as I have repeatedly shown using AINSLIE's OWN DATA. The data from Ainslie CLEARLY SHOW a steady and normal depletion of the battery voltage over the course of a series of trials. There is no "wild fluctuation" as Ainslie has claimed, there is a perfectly normal discharge curve that can be drawn from her data... and the FACT that the batteries show ANY reduction in voltage is STRONG EVIDENCE that they are in a state of substantial DISCHARGE already... in short, Ainslie has taken the VOLTAGE of nominal 12 volt LEAD ACID BATTERIES of HIGH CAPACITY, and as long as that voltage was above 12 volts each, she believes... or claims to believe.... that they are "still fully charged" and "have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all"..... when they clearly do show this loss, on her own scopetraces. Every time this statement is repeated, SHE LIES AGAIN, and I can prove it, have done so and will continue to do so whenever CREDIBLY challenged by anyone. I will make this PROOF of her lies available to ANY AND EVERY EDITOR of any journal to which Ainslie might submit any documents.  When all her scopeshots are gathered together, arranged in chronological order by timestamp, and in numerical sequence by the auto-assigned filename (something Ainslie has resisted with tooth and nail, leaving it to HER DETRACTORS to gather her data into one place for easy reference) it can be clearly seen by ANYONE WITH EYES and a functioning brain that Ainslie's lying claims in this regard are completely spurious and in fact are deliberately designed to deceive and conceal the FACT that her batteries DO IN FACT DISCHARGE NORMALLY DURING THE COURSE OF HER "EXPERIMENTATION". Of course no one has ever accused SheSaidSquat of having a functioning brain.

Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.

Caught fire..... Yes, during the event where you damaged your borrowed oscilloscope by creating a ground loop with the reference leads. But WHERE ARE THESE MIRACLE BATTERIES NOW, that either "did" discharge or "didn't discharge" depending on which claim you are trying to repudiate lately? They are conveniently missing, so their state of charge CAN NEVER BE DETERMINED. This however does not deter you from continuing to LIE about their capacity, their performance, and their depletion.

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.

Why should there have been? Nothing unusual ACTUALLY occurred that would warrant any further investigation of these missing batteries. The laboratory you sent your apparatus off to was a CHEMISTRY LABORATORY and your "chemistry experts" found NOTHING ANOMALOUS and that their batteries discharged normally during use. They even sent you materials so that you could CORRECT your bogus measurements and see for yourself that you had nothing of interest or importance.. but you refused to do the tests they suggested, and nothing more has been heard of this entire program.... which after all was only a delaying tactic, one of many, that enabled you to continue to AVOID DOING THE TESTING YOU HAVE BEEN PROMISING TO DO, for YEARS now.

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.

You have no idea what "classical measurement protocols" are for this kind of investigation and you couldn't implement them if you tried.

There, is that clear enough for you, lying Rose Marie Krebs Ainslie, and reeking sockpuppet YouSaidSquat?

You find my arguments illogical, when I CLEARLY REFUTE YOU AT EVERY STAGE, with references that show your lies? I laugh at you, Krebs, or whatever you are calling yourself these days.

[TinselKoala]

Let's do a quick review.

Some time ago Ainslie tried to claim that she had never claimed that the batteries recharge or are recharged during use. This claim was refuted by references to the PESWiki page, to her daft manuscripts, and to many statements she herself made in various blogposts and forum threads.

Then, just a few days ago, she tried to claim that she never referred to battery performance at all in her daft manuscripts. This was easily refuted with direct quotations from both of the later versions.

Then she tried to change the meaning of what she said before, by claiming that she actually MEANT to claim that there was no depletion of potential difference, or some such verbiage, while acknowledging that she certainly DID do what she had claimed earlier not to have done.
This most recent claim has also easily been refuted with direct quotes from ALL THREE of her manuscripts, the error-ridden Quantum article and the two many-times-rejected daft manuscripts that STILL DO NOT AGREE with the actual circuit used in the trials.

And now she is entangling herself with her own lies and squiggly squirmings, trying to make her words mean something else yet again. Soon she will try to convince you that she never tried to gain those three monetary awards based on her lying claims of COP>INFINITY.

Ainslie has come to the point where she now realises that NONE of the claims she has made concerning her "experimentation" are valid, with the exception of the "measured negative power", which of course has been independently replicated many times, and has been thoroughly analyzed, simulated in software and constructed in hardware, and is NOT any indication of what she claims it is. So just what is Ainslie-Krebs reduced to claiming? Not much at all, there is nothing left of her mendacious edifice of lies ...... she must content herself with her unsupported canards-- and her morbid sexual fascinations with a giant pickle.