Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

In this video, posted BY AINSLIE HERSELF, on one of her two extant YouTube channels, one can clearly see just what bogus claims are being made by Ainslie and her clueless "team" of NERDS ....things like "more energy returned to the source than was supplied"  (which is of course a lie)  but there are much more important things that can be clearly seen as well.

(And of course we recall that Ainslie tried ONCE AGAIN and OVER AND OVER to lie about this video, claiming that she did not post it..... a claim easily refuted and shown to be a lie,  by looking at the "dooziedont" YT channel, her blog posts on the day of posting, and her forum posts here.)

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

First, note carefully the position of the BLACK wire from the function generator output cable. It is clearly connected to the COMMON CIRCUIT GROUND POINT along with all of the scope reference leads. This is in CONTRADICTION to the correct (and actually unused) location given on the circuit diagrams in EVERY ONE of the versions of her daft manuscripts. This INCORRECT location of the Black FG output lead can be seen in EVERY PHOTOGRAPH of the 5- mosfet apparatus and EVEN IN THE SINGLE-MOSFET APPARATUS used by Ainslie. Only in the schematics--- prepared and edited WELL AFTER THE VIDEO DEMO -- does the Black FG lead suddenly "appear" in the correct location to enable proper measurement of current in the apparatus. The inescapable conclusion is that this lead was also clipped to this Wrong location as shown in the video, during the trials that are cited in the "experimental" writeups: the daft manuscripts.

This fact of the placement of the Black FG lead not only proves that Ainslie lies about her experiment and circuitry, but also COMPLETELY INVALIDATES ALL CURRENT DATA given in the reports of the "experimental" trials.

Second..... note the lies about the actual schematic used in the video demo. The narrator shows a diagram on paper, saying that this is the circuit used. But the diagram has ONLY A SINGLE MOSFET  and does not show the placement of the Black FG output lead AT ALL. It is NOT the circuit used at all.  He then gestures to the apparatus itself and says that all five mosfets are in parallel. Which of course THEY ARE NOT.

Third.......... for the "high heat" demonstration, one of the five (not six) batteries used in the "lowheat" portion of the demo WAS REMOVED WITHOUT EXPLANATION, leaving only a 48 volt nominal battery pack for this portion of the demonstration. WHY? I know why: to protect the Q1 mosfet on its tiny heatsink from failing due to overheating and exceeding the maximum drain current, which it would have done FOR SURE had the full 72 volts been used, and likely would have occurred even with only 60 volts. To avoid an embarrassing mosfet failure, they removed a battery, dropping the voltage to a value that would not exceed the mosfet's current and power dissipation ratings. Do the math (tm Ainslie): with a total circuit resistance of 14 ohms, about, what is the current in the system if 72 (or 60) volts are applied? What is the power dissipation of a 2-Ohm Rdss mosfet carrying that current? What does the IRFPG50 data sheet say are the absolute maximum limits for the mosfet ON A GOOD HEATSINK?

We have NEVER had any explanation AT ALL for the removal of that battery... and I am sure than mine is correct.

What do you think of all of that, SheSaidSquat?  Care to refute ANY of those points, which each individually prove that the demo is full of lies and together invalidate the claims altogether, while showing clearly just what a liar Ainslie really is, and even how she manipulates other people into lying for her?

Don't forget that Ainslie carried on the fiction about how the circuit was actually wired for nearly a solid MONTH, during which time replication and simulation efforts were underway, all using the WRONG CIRCUIT, and Ainslie continued to lie about it the whole time. And when it was finally revealed by .99, Ainslie actually said that she wanted to continue the deception and was disappointed that .99 revealed the truth.

What do you think of that? How in the world can any of that behaviour on their part, any of those Ains-lie claims, be justified at all?

[TinselKoala]

Below you will find attached screenshots taken TODAY, 17 November 2012, of some of the various versions of the NERD circuit schematic that are still extant:

From the PESWiki article describing Ainslie's "work" and claims;
From the "official publication" on Rossi's vanity blog "Journal of Nuclear Physics", from each of the two daft manuscripts posted there;
From the version of the second manuscript posted on her honeytrap forum right now.

The careful observer will note that there are two different versions given, and that the difference is highly significant when the current-carrying capability of the two circuits under the duty cycles used, is compared. Which circuit version was actually used? NEITHER ONE, because they both show the FG black (-) lead placed not on the common ground where the photos show it was actually placed, but "correctly" on the transistor side of the CVR "shunt".

And of course here is a quote from that last version:

The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 and inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of CEMF. A reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enable the generation of a "burst oscillation" mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.

Does Ainslie here claim that the batteries are recharged by the circuit? Or not?

[The Boss]

 
The words of a deluded psychotic, despised by everyone in the open source community.
Would any one of the thousands of members of this forum care to say otherwise?

"My dearest little Pickle - or TK - or Bryan Little

As I've just explained to a correspondent of mine - I am perpetually challenged to answer your absurd posts - sensibly.  Which is clearly beyond my competence.  I was hoping that my doggerel would assist the cause and lend it a certain gravitas.  But apparently not.

While your rather repetitive references, which are all of them so PERFECTLY 'out of date' - 'out of true' or 'out of context' - while they all of them depend on these MAGNIFICENTLY gross distortions  - what actually 'comes through' is a sense that you don't like me? Could this be true?  Are you simply using your EXQUISITELY illogical arguments to HIDE this dislike?

I confess to feeling rather hurt.  Because try as I might I sense that you really don't feel nearly as much for me as I do for you.  I DO hope I'm wrong.  Please RUSH to a post and deny these possibilities.  My emotional equilibrium - my very sanity - depends on your answer.

MOST earnestly
Rosie Pose"

[WilbyInebriated]

otherwise...

[TinselKoala]

As usual, Ainslie lies. The images OF HER CLAIMED CIRCUIT were captured yesterday, 18 november 2012, from AINSLIE'S OWN POSTED DAFT MANUSCRIPTS. All the quotations I have cited are from her own PRESENTLY POSTED material. If any of it is "out of date" then it is AINSLIE's OWN RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAN UP HER MESS by posting retractions and corrections that will remove these "out of date" claims and images of hers. Every quotation, every claim of hers, every diagram.... is from material CURRENTLY POSTED RIGHT NOW ON THE INTERNET, and none of it is accompanied by any kind of correction or retraction from AINSLIE. It is all current, not "out of date" at all.

She insults and whines and complains, yet SHE CANNOT REFUTE ONE SINGLE FACT about her or her claims that I have brought to the attention of the public. Not one !!

Yes, Ainslie-Krebs, I do not "like" you. You have maligned and insulted and lied about me for YEARS with your vile putrid mendacity and false claims, you cannot support ANY of your contentions about me with references to evidence, most especially this current idiocy about Brian Little;  you have demonstrated over and over that you are not "likeable" at all. You probably chew with your mouth open and smoke at the dinner table. You are overweeningly arrogant, but even worse than that.... you are simply WRONG almost all of the time. I still shake my head in bemusement at things you've claimed, like "THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL AS INDUCTIVE REACTANCE" or that the Solstice (or Equinox) comes in July -- or that I am Brian (or Bryan) Little.

Most especially.... your claim that your batteries do not discharge. And laughably... your present attempt to distance yourself from that MANY TIMES REFUTED claim. But you've made it in too many places and in too many ways for you to back off now and claim that you didn't try to claim that your batteries get RECHARGED by your circuit and that they DO NOT DEPLETE THEIR POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE or several other ways you've made the same claim. 

You talk about "publication".... you need to publish retractions of everything: the Quantum article that has a circuit that does not function as you claim, the present daft manuscripts that are full of errors and mendacity and fabricated descriptions of your procedures, the "data" that indicates that you have blown transistors, the lies about the circuit used..... all of the garbage you've strewn about must be retracted, if you have any integrity at all. But we know already that you do not.

And this current fascination with Brian Little's pickle..... makes you look even more incredibly STUPID than ever. You are a laughingstock and you don't even have the wit to realize it.

I challenge you, YET AGAIN Ainslie, liar, failure, fool: Produce EVEN ONE of those great refutations you claimed you would do as soon as you got your scope back, or as soon as you got your apparatus back, or as soon as your batteries arrived, or as soon as your guests leave, or as soon as the funeral is over, or as soon as you feel better,  or as soon as your computer is recovered...... POST YOUR DEMONSTRATION THAT REFUTES OUR ANALYSIS OF YOUR FIGURE 2 SCOPESHOT, which shows ZERO CURRENT, yet shows the Q1 mosfet getting +12 volts at its gate.  YOU CANNOT.

This kind of data cannot be obtained if the mosfets are intact and your circuit is wired as you claim. YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS ISSUE by either refuting our analysis with a SOLID DEMONSTRATION, or you must retract your bogus daft manuscripts altogether, as they are based on INCORRECT and IMPROPER DATA, false claims about schematics used, and bogus conclusions drawn from imaginary experimental results.... like your  "bringing water to boil".... when you did no such thing.

YOU HAVE PROMISED OVER AND OVER TO REFUTE OUR ANALYSYS OF THIS SCOPESHOT.  Among many other promises you've made and failed to keep.

But you cannot.... because we are correct. Your "papers" are completely invalid. AND ALL THIS INFORMATION IS CURRENT, and will be until you post retractions and corrections.

Taken out of context? NO, Ainslie, it is YOU  who now are attempting to back off from the outrageous claims you've been making very clearly FOR YEARS. You provide all the context needed to understand that you are a liar, an ignoramus, and you cannot produce what you claim. You are incapable, you are incompetent, you are uneducated, you are a liar, and .... you are WRONG.

For example.... show some evidence that your Black FG lead was positioned as in your schematics for the experimental trials.... instead of at the common ground point AS SHOWN IN THE STILL PHOTOS OF EVERY APPARATUS YOU HAVE EVER PHOTOGRAPHED, including the single mosfet versions. YOU CANNOT.... because the experiment was IN FACT performed just as in your video demo.... with the FG Black lead at the common ground point.... which makes your "published" schematics.... ALL OF THEM.... lies, and which completely invalidates all of the data you try to use to support your claims in both of your daft manuscripts.

(NOTE ALSO: the scopeshots below show a CLEAR AND DEFINITE DECREASE in "battery potential difference"... that is, battery VOLTAGE, battery STATE OF CHARGE.... during the day that the shots were taken. ONCE AGAIN, one of Ainslie's major claims is soundly refuted by HER OWN DATA.)