Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Do you see your mission in this little exercise of ours to 'teach'?  I'm not sure that I want to be 'taught' - anything at all by you.  When I need teaching I go to experts.  And when I need guidance I go to my colleagues. And if you're not that interested in getting to the questions in the paper - then why are you wasting everyone's time here?  I thought that was the object of this thread?  Was I that wrong?  Was it merely to concentrate on what needs to be taught and by whom?  Not a typical 'thread topic' and certainly not clear in all everyone's posts here.

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg316720/#msg316720

Rosemary, I think you are forgetting something. This thread is NOT about you or your device. It only _refers_ to it.
So go play in the street, because YOU ARE THAT WRONG. Over and over again.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg316720/#msg316720

Rosemary, I think you are forgetting something. This thread is NOT about you or your device. It only _refers_ to it.
So go play in the street, because YOU ARE THAT WRONG. Over and over again.

TK - you've made this very much about ME.  Not so much about our circuit.  And latterly a rather trivial discussion on star gazing.  But I think the thread has concluded.  Surely?  I keep hoping.  Then I can start doing some outlines of the proposed tests that we're going to make public.  The good news is that our study has been cleared.  It now needs to be sorted and then some testing apparatus and filming gear installed.  Can't wait. I'll include a full 555 circuit and show you what happens when we run it off a 'rechargeable' battery.  I'll do a series of tests to show picowatt that the MOSFETs are not blown.  I'll run some others to show how the function generator 'off set' shifts the zero reference of the waveform across the gates of the FETs.  And I'll show you the difference in filming under good lighting.  It would make it impossible to confuse our viewers as you manage.  I'll show the difference in the oscillations across the battery.  Those will be prelim shots.  Let me know if you can think of any others.  Happy to oblige.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

It's an interesting position, don't you think?

Here we have the "claimant" of an overunity device trying to DEBUNK the duplicate device that I have built and tested.

Further, the claimant "promises" to reproduce the tests and circuitry that I HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED many times in this thread, and to replicate my 555 timer circuit and my DC demonstrations .... yet she has NO plans to perform the simple and comprehensive test that would prove her claims unequivocally: the simple DIM BULB TEST. This test could be performed in three days and would put a stop to this whole chapter, if not the whole story. But she will not be doing it.

Since Tar Baby has reproduced ALL the evidence that Ainslie has shown including the NEGATIVE MEAN WATTAGE... and can do so AT ANY TIME ANY WHERE FOR ANYBODY on ANY OSCILLOSCOPE (except maybe my RM503) ..... Ainslie is now in the rather unique position of having to "debunk" ME, to have any credibility at all. But of course.... since Tar Baby is a duplicate of NERD.... well, do the math.

Any debunk of ME is also a debunk of NERD.

Remember, my ENTIRE process of exploration and development is right here, in public, and I will answer all questions immediately without running and hiding, and anyone can reproduce my results without even needing a digital oscilloscope. Anybody can do it.

ANYbody can make the negative wattage that Ainslie claims is evidence for OU, and I (not Ainslie), with the help of .99, MileHigh, PW, and Groundloop (and some others) have shown the way to do it and how to understand it.

This is a far cry from what Ainslie has done with her errors, misinterpretations, accusations, mendacity, combative attitude, hiding information, and refusal to perform real tests.

If Ainslie's negative wattage figures are evidence of something.... how can my negative wattage figures not be evidence of the same thing?


I hope somebody will explain to Ainslie that my power computations of negative average wattage are JUST AS VALID as hers. Has anyone found any "more" errors in my spreadsheet? Is there any real justification for using a million samples per period rather than 18? Whatever did people do before digital oscilloscopes? Would the result be materially different? No..... more precise perhaps, but not different in sign or magnitude, and certainly not more "accurate" .... because no matter how sophisticated your garbage truck is, Garbage In still produces Garbage Out.

I really LOL at the way she "skims" my videos and then pretends to understand what I'm talking about, when she manifestly does not.

You are a hypocrite, Ainslie, and you deserve to be spewed out like lukewarm water.

[TinselKoala]

TK - you've made this very much about ME.  Not so much about our circuit.  And latterly a rather trivial discussion on star gazing.  But I think the thread has concluded.  Surely?  I keep hoping.  Then I can start doing some outlines of the proposed tests that we're going to make public.  The good news is that our study has been cleared.  It now needs to be sorted and then some testing apparatus and filming gear installed.  Can't wait. I'll include a full 555 circuit and show you what happens when we run it off a 'rechargeable' battery.  I'll do a series of tests to show picowatt that the MOSFETs are not blown.  I'll run some others to show how the function generator 'off set' shifts the zero reference of the waveform across the gates of the FETs.  And I'll show you the difference in filming under good lighting.  It would make it impossible to confuse our viewers as you manage.  I'll show the difference in the oscillations across the battery.  Those will be prelim shots.  Let me know if you can think of any others.  Happy to oblige.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Oh yes, that's right.... I still have the NERD test preventer turned on and linecasting, don't I. That's why you can only talk about what you "will" do, but you can't actually DO it.

Go ahead and "show" the things I have already shown from Tar Baby. I will be standing by and will DUPLICATE once again, your duplications of what I've already shown in this thread. The only thing that you can show of interest will be a DIM BULB TEST or other comprehensive test of battery charge and remaining capacity. All the rest of your "testing" is irrelevant.... and I'll duplicate it anyway.

Meanwhile, I'll show, YET AGAIN  that a function generator can and does source CURRENT, whether or not it is in series with another power supply. How do you explain this video if a FG can't source current? What is making those LEDs light up, just voltage?

Rosemary.... Voltage, current and resistance. They go together. If a transistor has an on-state resistance of 2 ohms and it is carrying a current of 5 amps.... what must the voltage be? Will the transistor get warm? Does it matter to the transistor whether this voltage... and hence the current... is coming from a function generator or a wind farm or a cold fusion device? Of course not.

You are the only one confused by my videos Ainslie, and that's because you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand them, even though I am pitching them at an eighth-grade level. And also because you simply do not pay attention to what's being said or shown.

And YOU are the one who would like to make this thread "very much about Ainslie". If you didn't make your insane ignorant blowhard insulting comments, if you simply answered questions that were asked of you and used  normal reasoning ability and stopped insulting people with literally EVERY post you make.... this thread would be IGNORING YOU completely, because after all YOU are irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY

[TinselKoala]

On April 23 Ainslie posted,

In terms of a 'time line'.  Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early  May.  The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house.  I need to set these tests up in our study.  At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons.  This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country.  All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week.  Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing.  But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things.  I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge.  And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com.  I've got lots of homework to do before I get started.  And I won't be 'rushed'.  I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past.  Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence.  And I've been well 'bitten'.  I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented.  That way the results will be unequivocal.  It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'. 

But I'll get there.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise.  A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters.  I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread.  And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today.  Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.

Well... hadn't you better be getting busy, then? Yesterday was Wednesday on this half of the planet. Tick tock, tick tock. Have you found your "academics" who will endorse your work? Are they going to remain anonymous, like me?

And note: the only place that will provide the "required supervision" of those tests is the Ainslie residence. How impartial can you get?

In stark contrast, Tar Baby can be tested ANYWHERE at ANY TIME and I don't even have to be on the same CONTINENT much less in the same house "supervising" and making sure that nobody actually tries to _falsify an hypothesis_ during the testing. Anywhere, anytime by anybody.... as long as NERD is tested in the same manner at the same time. ANY TESTS even. Drop them both in a bucket of water and see if they sink or float, I don't care. Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in all significant respects.

You see.... when in a store I look at a demonstration device and decide to purchase one of my own.... when I get it home I know it will perform just like the sample in the store, because they both have the same circuitry. So how could they possibly perform differently?