Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Bring on your demo, the sooner the better.  As long as you do it properly.

There is only one truth about your experiment whether it be demoed by you or demoed by TK.  The batteries will not lie.

It looks like the more good and credible data that TK generates, the less and less you will acknowledge it.  Just like you never acknowledged your nonsensical mistake about the resistor and power dissipation when there is current flow.  There is a trail of dozens if not hundreds of times were you have not acknowledged your own gross errors.  How you will react when you finally see the Mother of All Errors with your own eyes doing your own experiment is undetermined at this point.  For your own mental health, you should just walk away from it when the news finally hits.   Seriously, just switch everything off and walk away and forget about it, it would be the best thing for you.  Ten years is enough, time to move on.

MileHigh

I will not acknowledge TK's evidence.  Or lack thereof.  It's flawed.  Grossly so.  I invariably acknowledge my own errors.  You know that well.  I have no idea about any time that I denied power being dissipated or delivered as a result of current flow.  And the question is this MileHigh.  How will YOU react when we PROVE OUR CLAIM?  Because your commitment to its denial is considerably more anxious than my own to its proof.  And by reference to 'mental health' are you implying that I'm delusional?  In which case, as I've mentioned before, these delusions are shared with many qualified electrical engineers, technicians and interested parties with or without qualifications, coupled with the delusions of our beautiful LeCroy. I'm proud to say that I am now about to take ownership of it - and just in passing a word of thanks.  We all have a debt of enormous gratitude for that extended loan.  Thank you again - Coast to Coast.  It's a WONDERFUL piece of equipment.

And ten years is just a 'blink of the eye' in terms of time.  It is ALWAYS a difficult thing to bring new evidence to bear on old prejudice.  And in the words of your late President Kennedy.  We do these things precisely because 'it is hard'. I'm up for the challenge.  I LOVE IT.  It's such a worthy cause.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

edited.  took out a pronoun and qualified another.  Always trip up on this.  It's my only fault.  LOL (laugh out loud) Not (Golly I'm Anxious)

[MileHigh]

Yes it's so grossly flawed that TK has replicated your instantaneous power waveform with the negative average power.  And you keep on trying to insist that he's got it all wrong.  It's disturbing to read you post that.

All the contributors to TK's thread except you know that we are in the home stretch and you are on the run.  I have to assume that the wider readership agrees with this assessment also.  It's never been worse for your claim than it is now.  You feigning the opposite is why I worry about your mental health.

Bring on your testing.  We all welcome it with open arms.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes it's so grossly flawed that TK has replicated your instantaneous power waveform with the negative average power.  And you keep on trying to insist that he's got it all wrong.  It's disturbing to read you post that.

All the contributors to TK's thread except you know that we are in the home stretch and you are on the run.  I have to assume that the wider readership agrees with this assessment also.  It's never been worse for your claim than it is now.  You feigning the opposite is why I worry about your mental health.

Bring on your testing.  We all welcome it with open arms.

MileHigh

Indeed MileHigh.  I most certainly WILL do that demonstration.  And I hope to extend its exposure as widely as possible.  And under conditions of proof that will be unequivocal - if I can manage it.  And I think that all that's required then - is to evaluate the results of that demonstration.  Let the chips fall whichever way they may.  And any prediction to their outcome would be somewhat inappropriate - I'd have thought?  Frankly I already know the outcome of the COP>17 test as we've done this against battery performance.  The NERD circuit - not yet. 

In any event.  I take it that should I demonstrate the claim as being over unity - that you'll be delighted.  I know that the majority of our readers will be.  But our contributing members to this thread?  Not so much.  Sadly they'll be deeply disappointed - to a man.

Kindest again
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Nobody is stopping you, Ainslie. Nothing at all has EVER prevented you from doing a definitive test of your claims except your own ignorance.

You could have proven your claim six times over in the time I've been doing this little exercise. And you are in an extremely difficult position logically. How could two circuits made from the same components and using the same schematic and tested in the same way and producing the same results including the MAIN DATA, over and over.... how could two such circuits fail to perform identically on a definitive test?

Go play in the street, poser. You have nothing, you never did, and EVERYBODY who has ever picked up a soldering iron knows it. Don't you think that even a child could have demonstrated COP > INFINITY with a handful of off the shelf parts if it was really true?

ONCE AGAIN: Tar Baby is RIGHT NOW available for side-by-side testing against NERD. I'll box it up and ship it off to ANYBODY STEFAN DESIGNATES, batteries included, as long as you do the same with NERD, and I'll allow ANYONE to test Tar Baby IN ANY MANNER AT ALL, just as long as NERD is tested in exactly the same way.

[TinselKoala]

I will not acknowledge TK's evidence.  Or lack thereof.  It's flawed.  Grossly so. 

Where and how? All my data is available for public inspection. If you have some real objection, state it with a reference to exactly where and how my evidence is "grossly flawed". You know I'd do the same for you... and I have done so, over and over and over, with references, citations, and demonstrations. All you can do is stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue... but you cannot demonstrate where and how I'm so wrong. Where, for example, is your OWN analysis of the inductive reactance of any of your components? Nowhere, that's where.

I invariably acknowledge my own errors.  You know that well.  

That is such a bald-faced lie that everyone who is reading here is laughing and shaking their heads. At the end of this post I will AGAIN list a bunch of things you have been wrong about and have NEVER CORRECTED OR RETRACTED.

I have no idea about any time that I denied power being dissipated or delivered as a result of current flow. 

That's right at least... you have no idea.

And the question is this MileHigh.  How will YOU react when we PROVE OUR CLAIM?  Because your commitment to its denial is considerably more anxious than my own to its proof.  And by reference to 'mental health' are you implying that I'm delusional?  In which case, as I've mentioned before, these delusions are shared with many qualified electrical engineers, technicians

NAME ONE SINGLE ONE that we can contact and ask about your claims. Of course you will not.

and interested parties with or without qualifications, coupled with the delusions of our beautiful LeCroy. I'm proud to say that I am now about to take ownership of it - and just in passing a word of thanks.  We all have a debt of enormous gratitude for that extended loan.  Thank you again - Coast to Coast.  It's a WONDERFUL piece of equipment.

It's a toy oscilloscope that makes pretty colored lines. You are like a little kid looking through a pawn shop window at a violin.... a quality instrument that you will never be able to play well enough to avoid embarrassing yourself in public with the screeching sounds and mangled tunes you will produce.

And ten years is just a 'blink of the eye' in terms of time.  It is ALWAYS a difficult thing to bring new evidence to bear on old prejudice. 

No, you poser. The difficulty lies with the Laws of Physics, which refuse to bend to your illogic and foot stomping tantrums.  TEN YEARS, Ainslie. In that time.... look at all the technological progress that has been made in the real world. And you can't even get ROSSI to "publish" your nonsense "papers".

And in the words of your late President Kennedy.  We do these things precisely because 'it is hard'. I'm up for the challenge.  I LOVE IT.  It's such a worthy cause.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

edited.  took out a pronoun and qualified another.  Always trip up on this.  It's my only fault.  LOL (laugh out loud) Not (Golly I'm Anxious)

25.6 million Joules. Correct that calculation and retract the claim based on it. You have NEVER done this. Sure, you admitted that you may have been a "tad out".... but you never posted the correct calculation and never retracted the claim based on it. That single incident is sufficient to illustrate that you LIE in your first sentence of your post.... and here are some more:

Let's say that our utility supply is feeding current into an element on an electric stove to a temperature of say 260 degrees centigrade.
. Let's say that the element is has a resistance of 10 Ohms.  The source voltage is 220 volts.  The applied current is therefore 220/10 = 22 amps.
. Therefore the wattage delivered is 22 amps * 220 volts - which, according to my calculator is 2 200 watts.
. Now I assure you.  While that temperature over that resistor stays at that constant output of 260 degrees - there is no reduction in the rate of current flow.
. In other words our utility supplier both measures and charges for us for a wattage that they compute at 2 200 watts
. every second
. for every minute
. of each of those six hours
. giving a staggering product of 2200 x 60 x 60 x 6 hours being 47 520 000 watts.

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

Things she's said that aren't true and hasn't corrected, in her own words, in red: (I found so many in just this thread alone that I got tired of it before I was even halfway through.)

1. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.

No...they aren't. They seem to be 50 or perhaps even 60 amp-hours each.

2. Joules = 1 watt per second.

Er.... no. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is one WattSecond. Very different and not mathematically equivalent at all.

3. So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Er... do the math. This calculation is completely wrong in at least three different ways.

4. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

A nominal "12 volt" battery of the type used by Ainslie will indicate well over 13 volts when fully charged, and will not drop below 12 volts until nearly completely DISCHARGED. So the fact that the batteries are still OVER 12 volts is actually evidence that they are substantially DISCHARGED... or they would be over 13 volts each, not 12.

5. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

Er... only if you use the bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure. Using the correct figure the battery could have performed 10 such tests without depleting its charge. Yet RA has never retracted this claim. Therefore... since she knows the 25.6 megaJoule figure is wrong.... it is a continuing and outrageous lie.



6. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

Read the explanation in Wiki again. One Watt is not One Joule and one Joule is not one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT interchangeable, and the WIKI explains it correctly and RA once again is distorting the reference and lying about her claim.

7. Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.

But previously she said, "That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

and

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit." These statements cannot all be true... so one or more of them is a lie.

8. Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?

The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.


I have never once taken the voltage "across the load resistor". In fact without isolated probes or a differential voltage probe, you cannot monitor voltage across the load, because it is "high-side switched" and doesn't connect directly to the negative common ground point. I never said in the video any such thing... what I ALWAYS say is that I am monitorin the common mosfet drains, on the transistor side of the load. And neither have I ever "complained" any such thing. I have said that they are not typically showing the mosfet common drain voltage... a very different thing altogether.


9. TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements. 

This is false. I have posted many videos containing precise measurements of many quantities.

10. This is not clear.  Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330?  In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic.  You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all.  Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery?  At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal?  Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal?  If the former - then the readings should be co-incident.  If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim.  And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing?  To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output.  In which case?   On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery.  Which is a negative voltage value.  If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge.  And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit.  Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation.  I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive.  And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other.  Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results.  That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.   

This entire post is full of lies, distortions and inaccuracies. I have shown very clearly, before this post, where and how the CH is used in the circuit. I have indeed replicated the waveform on the batteries. And that part about my load "not sufficiently inductive" is a real howler... since my load is 74 microHenry and hers is CLAIMED to be only a couple of microHenry. And there certainly is consistency in my results. I can turn the system on and make ANY of the illustrated waveforms immediately...because I understand the circuit.


11. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude.  And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.

Two at once. Clearly my battery oscillations DO have the "same amplitude", as demonstrated in several videos. On remeasuring my load resistor using a reliable method, our load resistors have nearly the same inductance.

12.  Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery.  This results in a negative wattage.  We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit.  It's that simple.

False.
The unpublished, many times rejected draft document that RA calls a "paper" has many errors in it. The data and measurements are full of errors. RA does not show any evidence of what she claims, she shows errors in data collection, analysis and interpretation. There is no experimental support for her claims in the "papers". And I am not required to repeat her errors in order to replicate her circuit.
AND I HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE SAME NEGATIVE WATTAGE. It's that simple.


13. We do not claim over unity.

This is clearly false, as you have claimed overunity many times. In English, claiming that the batteries do not discharge while doing useful work is CLAIMING OVERUNITY.

That gets us up to about page 23 of this thread. There are more lies and false statements from RA yet to come.

None of these statements that Ainslie has made, and that are demonstrably false, have been corrected by her.

I invariably acknowledge my own errors.  You know that well.  

What a laugh. What a disgusting, mendacious, lying, vile, hypocritical egotistic arrogant poser you are, Ainslie.