Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

@Stefan: Thank you for putting that into the Hydro thread.

There are several points to note: the "self running" and "energy producing" is always in the future tense.... not the present tense.

they are very close.. to the point ...  where (hesitates) we we can actually.. where we can actually ah... where I think within the next month or two clearly define and test whether it is going to produce excess energy and self-run.

Dansie's hesitation and body language here in this part are very revealing. But his words are even more so: He thinks.... that they are very close to the point..... where they can clearly define and test _whether_ (or not) it is going to produce excess energy and self run.

Which means that they  have not yet defined "excess energy" or "self running" to his satisfaction, nor have they tested or demonstrated either one. They are only very close to that point.... he thinks.

But I "thought".... because Travis told me so ( Didn't he? Like fishing for eels with a coarse net trying to get a straight answer from that fellow.) ..... that they had passed that point long ago and could demonstrate a self running, energy producing machine at any time that was desired. Because they did so in the past, right?

Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow.... but sorry, no jam today. Down the rabbit hole it goes......

[picowatt]

I'm shocked that Mark Dansie didn't mention Rose at all in his latest video update. 



Oh, and he hasn't signed off on the whole MrWayne debacle yet either.

It is more shocking (but not surprising) that she thinks correcting her current measurement errors due to CSR inductance while NOT correcting the voltage measurement errors due to lead/battery inductance somehow fully addresses the points you raised long ago in your lengthy analysis/write up regarding the negative mean power measurement.

Last I checked, it takes an accurate current measurement AND an accurate voltage measurement to calculate an accurate wattage.       

But, at least, it seems she now believes that "such an animal" (inductance) does indeed exist.  That is some progress.

I truly hope Mark Dansie is able to evaluate her set up.  She doesn't seem to consider that his opinion is a double edged sword that can cut either way.

I also hope he has a chance to read your analysis pdf regarding the negative mean power measurement.     

If Mark visits, maybe she will also demo a functioning N channel FET connected as per Q1 in her schematic with +12 Vgs that does not turn on.  Now THAT would be something ... 


PW

   

[poynt99]

Indeed PW,

Rose has certainly overlooked the gist of my detailed analysis.

The erroneous measurement is the BATTERY VOLTAGE, and she has been informed as to how to mitigate this artifact (right at the battery itself) in order to make an accurate measurement.

As I mentioned before, Dansie won't be visiting Rose, especially if he did indeed pass on her silly thesis to some of his engineer colleagues.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie continues "writing a blue streak" :

Dear Mark,
In as much as Tinsel Koala denies these claims of ours - one must assume that he is NOT able to replicate them.  He also denies any enhanced efficiencies in his own replications.  Therefore it is of paramount importance that you do NOT rely on his presentations of our circuit as his replications are - self-evidently - flawed.  Thank you for your undertaking to evaluate our own experimental evidence related to this in preference to his own.

False again. Ainslie "ASSUMES" a lot, none of which she can support with facts and data. In FACT,  I have replicated ALL of Ainslie's claims FOR WHICH THERE IS EVIDENCE. I have reproduced the faulty "negative mean power" measurements and understand why they are obtained and how to CORRECT them. Ainslie herself has not been able to show that her batteries do not discharge, as she previously claimed. So she lies still more, and in such a manner that is EASILY REFUTED, by anyone who wants to do side-by-side testing of Tar Baby and her NERD circuit. They will perform identically in every significant way. This challenge has stood for many months now and the ability of TB to reproduce Ainslie's claims is not in doubt by ANYONE WHO WATCHES (and understands) MY VIDEOS. "In as much" that excludes the ignorant mendacious AINSLIE herself, who is so arrogant and ignorant that she won't even look at real evidence.

Regarding your request that we duplicate this effect with the use of capacitors.  We have referenced this in our paper.  The point is that we identify the requirement for a continual imbalanced voltage supply.  A capacitor is not able to retain this imbalance. Therefore it does not contribute to enhanced efficiencies. We do, however, have proposals that we believe would manage this more efficiently than a battery supply.  But the thesis needs to be proven and the apparatus constructed.  This is beyond our own expertise and we are rather hoping that you and your team will explore these principles further.

Another bunch of "spin" and misdirection and outright lies. She does not understand what capacitors are or how they work or how they are used, nor how to calculate the energy in a capacitor. She mocked my ONE-THIRD FARAD (0.33 F) capacitor bank with which I tested Tar Baby, and couldn't even tell the difference between "one eighth" and "0.8" and even laughed about this ignorance.... not even realizing that SHE was talking about 800 microFarads and thinking that was nearly One Farad. Yes, it is true, Ainslie has no idea of powers of ten or their abbreviations.  Perhaps she has learned something by now.... but I doubt it, she has not got the prerequisites for learning this material.
IN ADDITION, and much more importantly, Tar Baby performed IDENTICALLY using the big capacitor bank as it does on batteries... just for a shorter time. This is illustrated in my videos. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVEFORMS PRODUCED AT ALL until the voltage on the caps declines appreciably. With an appropriately sized bank.... something Ainslie neither appreciates, nor can calculate.... it will be IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE in the scope traces for many minutes after the switch to caps is made. In fact I defy even AINSLIE HERSELF to discriminate between traces made with CAPS ONLY and traces made with batteries, ON HER OWN DEVICE, and I suggest that Mark Dansie...... should he somehow actually deign to descend to Cape Town to look at her kludge..... bring a capacitor bank of at least 2 Farads at 60 VDC, and test Ainslie's circuit using them. The same negative mean power calculations will result from her flawed measurements whether batteries or capacitors OF APPROPRIATE SIZE are used to power her circuit. Again, I offer Tar Baby, ready to travel wherever required, for a side-by-side comparison with Ainslie's device. There will be no differences found.
This nonsense of hers about running, or not running, on capacitors is another EASILY TESTED and easily refuted argument from her. She has never tested her device with a large capacitor bank, and in fact, at her level of "skill" she could easily damage equipment, just as she did at least once before, when two batteries "caught fire" due to her careless mishandling of connections.

She does make one true statement: "This is beyond our own expertise ."

I trust that covers the most of what we've discussed.  I added a fuller account of the extent of our claim in my previous email to you to eliminate any ambiguities in our references.  But this is NOT the full extent of our claim.  It only relates the the claims that we have, thus far, put in the public domain.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Oh... there are still more claims, that Ainslie has not "put in the public domain".... Yet she intends to compete for a Free Energy OPEN SOURCE prize?

I laugh and laugh at this arrogant fool, who has nothing but her overweening personality disorder, and who thinks that her "nine hundred hits" per day are coming from people instead of spambots probing for victims.

Mark, if you are reading here, I remind you once again that I have all of Ainslie's publicly posted data, over several years, collected in one place, along with critical analyses by me and by several others like .99 (he has an entire folder for his material in my database). All her scopeshots which she has posted in various places are there, as well as all the conflicting versions of her daft manuscripts which are still extant, along with ample proof of her mendacity and prevarication. Even the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" video of her demonstration, which she posted to her YT account and announced publicly on this forum and in her blog... is included, along with analysis that shows the FIVE DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS claimed or used for the single circuit displayed in that video. Is the " official" approved final schematic the actual one used, even? No, it is not: the FG's Black Lead is clearly on the "wrong" side of the CVR in the video, and it  has been moved to the "right" place in the "official" schematic..... which was drawn AFTER the earlier, incorrect location in the video was "poynted" out.

[TinselKoala]

Shame on you, Poynty Poynt. You are talking about Ainslie on a forum where she cannot respond. What an absolute SIN that is. How NAUGHTY.

And Poynty Point - it's rather bad form to talk about me disparagingly - on a forum where I am not able to defend myself.  I thought you were capable of better.  I am that WRONG?  Are you actually lacking decency and decorum - like those other trolls?  TUT TUT Poynty.  That's naughty.

Of course..... Ainslie herself is above such naughtiness, isn't she.

We can add "utter hypocrite" to the PROVEN TRUE descriptions of ROSEMARY AINSLIE.