Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

We are inordinately PROUD of our work in those papers.  With good reason.

My goodness golly. You are indeed inordinately PROUD of your "work", that is the truth. Perhaps the only true statement you've made, lately.

And since you are so smart I am sure you mean just what you say.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=inordinately&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI

[fuzzytomcat]

Actually TK - our justice system - those of us who live and work under democracies (and with the possible exception of Italy) BELIEVE what is stated unless and until they are PROVED TO BE FALSE.  We BELIEVE in the presentations of papers unless they're proven to be fraudulent.  In the same way those of us who are in any way fair minded BELIEVE in innocence until proven otherwise.

We are inordinately PROUD of our work in those papers.  With good reason. As we've also had those that compliment on our work.  Indeed it is also a compliment in a strange way - when you 'disparage' that work.  I'd be sorry that such esteemed academics would - in any way - endorse your own opinions.  They'd be 'blackened' 'tarred' by association.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie's Quote -
We BELIEVE in the presentations of papers unless they're proven to be fraudulent.

Well you are "NOT" a inventor of electronic circuitry and cannot read a electronic schematic or construct a electronic device, which Rosemary you have admitted this countless times in your postings at several forums. Tell us now Rosemary, how you can apply in a patent application with requirements for that patent as a "INVENTOR" of that electronic device or circuitry when it is a actual regulation of application as being a inventor to be able to construct (build) what you Rosemary are applying for and you Rosemary can't do the application requirement ?

HARNESSING A BACK EMF  ( WO9938247A1.pdf )  JULY 29, 1999

POWER SUPPLY FOR ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OPERATED INSTALLATIONS AND APPLIANCES  ( WO03007657A2.pdf )   JULY 3, 2002

METHOD OF HARNESSING A BACK EMF AND APPARATUS USED IN PERFORMING THE METHOD   ( EP0932248A1.pdf )   JUNE 29, 1998

HARNESSING A BACK EMF   ( ZA9900385A.pdf )   JANUARY 20,1999


Each one of these four (4) patent applications has you Rosemary Ann Ainslie as the "INVENTOR" of the device and/or circuit ..... all using somewhere in the application papers content a MOSFET with a function, signal or pulse generator and a fly back diode.

So, Rosemary your "NOT" a inventor or have been and you have no clue on the operation characteristics of a n-channel mosfet or it's standard excepted diagrammatic representation the operation fundamentals of a common function, signal or pulse generator and how to read, comprehend and present collected data from a oscilloscope properly you Rosemary have proved this repeatedly without any exceptions.

You, Rosemary have more years of experience than anyone known in the Open Source community as a FRAUD and LIAR ... and I'm sure your very proud of those facts.

[TinselKoala]

Yep, fraud and liar.

Her "overunity" or COP INFINITY claim is based on three things:

1. The "average mean power" measurements cited in her drafts.
2. The "still fully charged" open-circuit voltage measurements on her batteries.
3. The ASSUMPTION that the batteries do not have sufficient capacity to support even one of her heat runs.

Well.... #1 is a measurement error, caused by NOT using standard measurement protocols, and can be easily reproduced using a wide variety of circuit variants. Not even the magic IRFPG50 is necessary... with enough loose wires, even IRF830as can be used and likely any N channel mosfet of the required voltage and current ratings could be used. Tar Baby has no difficulty reproducing this measurement error at all.

#2 is just ridiculous to anyone who has ever worked with lead-acid batteries. We've posted discharge curves for similar batteries (Ainslie has never specified EXACTLY her batteries) and these curves show that a nominal 12 volt battery of the type used by Ainslie will not drop below 12 volts until it is over 80 percent DISCHARGED; in other words a 60 Amp-hour capacity battery might have delivered 50 amp hours of its energy before dropping below 12 volts indicated on the test Ainslie claims is "standard  measurement protocol" for testing battery energy content or state of charge.

And #3.... has never been tested by Ainslie at all, it is just a conjecture BASED ON HER MATH ERRORS AND CONCEPTUAL MUDDLING. As I and others have shown using her own numbers and calculating correctly, each of the mentioned heat trials used only a small fraction of the battery's capacity and are otherwise unremarkable....yet her ignorant math errors have led her to claim in several places that these trials "far exceeded" the battery's capacity. When in fact they do not, not by a wide margin, not even close, no contest at all. And she's made these or similar errors MANY TIMES.

If she simply would carry out the CORRECT calculation on either of the quoted trials I've referred to, she could see this for herself. However she refuses even to do this simple thing--- to  repeat those calculations correctly and revise the conclusion based on the erroneous first result. This would take one simple paragraph.... yet she prefers to fill page after page of lies claiming to have corrected them but cannot point to WHERE this correction is, and neither can anyone else. And the bogus conclusions still appear, and have never been corrected.

Now, in the past several days, she has stated that she "claims NOTHING at all" with respect to the NERD circuit, that she has NEVER claimed "overunity" performance, and that she in fact has NO IDEA about the state of charge of her batteries.

So what are we talking about here? The raw data is easily reproducible, it's a mistaken interpretation of known phenomena caused by improper testing procedures and overinterpretation of the results therefrom. The conclusions drawn by the claimants in their draft documents (fraught with other errors as well) are not supported EVEN BY THEIR OWN MISTAKEN MEASUREMENTS, much less by those same measurements done correctly.

And finally, the claimant appears to have withdrawn all claims relating to the NERD circuit and apparently is no longer pursuing the three monetary prizes, and clearly has no intent to perform the REQUESTED TESTS, which are simple, direct and unequivocal and do not depend on any instrument readings or interpretations.

(Instead she claims that she will "prove" her measurements, which of course will only prove that the same mistakes can be repeated, on demand. (However, there seems to be some difficulty there too.... since she can't get a 555 timer to do what she needs it to and nobody is helping her any more.))

Well, under these circumstances it is difficult for me to understand just WHERE IS THE BEEF. What is Ainslie objecting to? She either thinks Tar Baby IS an accurate replication of NERD... in which case she's got some testing to do to show that my results are not comparable to hers... OR she thinks it IS NOT, in which case wtf is she doing posting in this thread, which is about testing the TAR BABY.

After all.... I have never claimed that Tar Baby IS an EXACT REPLICATION.... how could it be, it doesn't have a white pegboard or a dozen clipleads soldered to mosfets. It only uses the same schematic, the same components and gives the same results.... but it's not a replication because it isn't "overunity". What's that you say, neither is NERD? Well.... of course it isn't.

What I have claimed and still claim is that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in all significant respects when tested in the same manner, side-by-side. Or even REMOTELY when operated by trusted competent hands with opposable thumbs. And this is still true today, and Tar Baby is ready to prove it today.

[TinselKoala]

At various times, the battery capacity of the Ainslie Raylite silver calcium lead acid batteries has been given as 40, 50, or 60 Amp-hours. The model number of these batteries has never been given by Ainslie but guesses have been made and it appears that 60 Amp-hours may be the correct value. But this is NO THANKS to Ainslie, who should have specified the exact model number and amp-hour capacity in the "papers". Since the claim is based on exceeding the capacity of the battery.... the capacity of the battery must be known with some accuracy and precision. A 30 percent uncertainty in this fundamental value... with the best estimate being a "guess" as to battery model, based on looking at images from a video, rather than a battery data sheet.... is unacceptable.

The two "papers" that seem to refer to the same set of "experiments" contain two distinct and different schematic diagrams for the circuit. Perhaps one or the other is the correct one or perhaps we are to believe that both were used somehow. Either way, this ambiguity must be officially addressed by the authors in an edit or erratum statement. To do otherwise, but to continue to refer to these "papers" as containing anything of veracity or importance... is unacceptable.

The "papers" contain a reference to the equipment and apparatus allegedly used in the "experiments". The function generator is not listed by type at all in one of the drafts, and in the other it is given as "IsoTech GFG324". Yet in the video demonstration the function generator can be seen to be an InsTek GFG 8216a or similar model. An internet search for "IsoTech GFG 324" or variants comes up empty, although IsoTech does manufacture or rebrand many function generators. The function generator used in these demonstrations is a critical component and Ainslie has made claims for its performance that do not correspond with the performance of standard function generators. So we MUST be allowed to have more information about the "GFG324" or other function generator used in the "experiments" described in the "papers". The present state of affairs -- either a mistake in the equipment list OR a nonstandard FG used without documentation -- is clearly unacceptable.

These are three glaring difficulties with the drafts. How could anyone recommend or consider publication of these draft documents with these problems?

Further analysis of the data presented reveals still further problems that the authors have refused to deal with seriously, such as oscilloscope indications of damaged transistors in the apparatus during certain data runs. Inconsistent descriptions of circuit behaviour, compounded by a "thesis" or conjecture about current flow that has no connection to accepted electronic theory, indicate that the author(s) do not understand basic electronics, test equipment, or power measurement protocols, and outside material available from and about the principal author indicates that she is woefully ignorant about mathematics, physics, electronics in general, test equipment, measurement and analysis protocols, and even the behaviour of her own circuit.

In addition, the author refuses to engage in constructive dialog about the questioned points, and has failed to correct a single mistake or answer a single relevant question about these "papers".  Where is the erratum sheet explaining the difference in the circuit diagrams? Where is the information about the batteries, about the function generator? What about the scope traces that appear to show damaged transistors? What about the calculations ... not given in the papers but alluded to ... that mistakenly indicate exceeding battery capacity? None of this has been properly addressed by the author, who prefers to threaten, intimidate, insult, lie and bloviate rather than simply answering the questions with truth, accuracy and more data.

So why is this person given any credence at all? The claims are bogus and not supported, the papers are fatally flawed, the person herself is terminally uncooperative and obnoxious, and further.... the main claim has been refuted over and over. Yet like a zombie on steroids or the Energizer bunny on crank.... it just keeps going and going and going...from forum to forum, burning through collaborators and interested bystanders and eating their brains wherever they are encountered.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Your words come back to haunt you one more time:

It is an ironic consequence of an excessive zeal that it carries the seeds of its own destruction.

Doing battle with excessive zeal with people that are clearly far superior to you in electronics knowledge and experience has indeed carried the seeds of your own destruction.  Over the years you have been repeatedly exposed as being incompetent and clueless but the recent battle over the past few weeks has really sealed your fate.

It's plainly obvious to any reader of this thread that your circuit has no merit and for the most part you don't even know what you are talking about.  Just do the battery testing and then let's all move on.

MileHigh