Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

But OK, fine, if you are no longer claiming to have exceeded the battery capacity, that's OK with me, certainly.

So... you are no longer claiming Overunity performance... in fact according to you you NEVER have claimed OU performance, and COP>17, COP=INFINITY, COP exceeds INFINITY, and COP>INFINITY are not to be construed as meaning "overunity" or "free energy" when coming from Ainslie. OK, that's also OK with me.

And you have withdrawn your claim to the 3 prizes, and .99 has accepted your official withdrawal of your claim for that prize. Good. Now we just have two more official withdrawals to go.

And you don't intend to do battery capacity testing, you will only "prove" what anyone can prove: a negative mean power product shown on an oscilloscope. And you aren't going to use this "proof" for a claim of overunity or free energy, because you never claim that. OK, that's fine with me too.

And of course I have Tar Baby, right here, right now, ready to reproduce every measurement you can make, RIGHT NOW. Don't forget, though... I've demonstrated some things with Tar Baby that you claim are impossible, like current flowing through the FG. So you will need to show that NERD behaves differently somehow.... or you will have to acknowledge fully what we all know already: Tar Baby does indeed perform just like NERD in all significant respects.

GOOD.  We're agreed.  Then we're finished?  Here?  No further need of this thread?  Because then I can get the time required to concentrate on the work needed.

Rosie Pose.

[TinselKoala]

Those references art NOT part of the paper therefore they are NOT part of the CLAIM.  And your highlighted text IS NOT A CLAIM OF OVER PERFORMANCE.

Rosie Pose

So you will of course be posting corrections to the circuit diagrams, the function generator model number and so on, since your "papers" contain your claims and must be considered correct by anyone who reads them. Right? But the papers linked from your blog... presumably the definitive copies... have not been corrected.

And nobody has been able to find any place where you have corrected your errors in your calculations, in spite of your claim that you have corrected them. Are you telling the truth? I doubt it.

Just do this one, it's easy. Well, it's easy for someone who has studied the subject matter.

In any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

[TinselKoala]

@FTC:

But wait... those can't be genuine Ainslie documents can they? I mean, those documents clearly claim "overunity" don't they?
"Enables overunity results", "Enables Breach of Unity". That's pretty strong language; in the English I speak the difference between claiming "enables breach of unity" and claiming overunity performance is a fine distinction indeed and not one that would normally be drawn from the statements.

But our Rosemary Ainslie has NEVER claimed overunity. Has she.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK

So you will of course be posting corrections to the circuit diagrams, the function generator model number and so on, since your "papers" contain your claims and must be considered correct by anyone who reads them. Right? But the papers linked from your blog... presumably the definitive copies... have not been corrected.

And nobody has been able to find any place where you have corrected your errors in your calculations, in spite of your claim that you have corrected them. Are you telling the truth? I doubt it.

Just do this one, it's easy. Well, it's easy for someone who has studied the subject matter.

Everything that will be needed will be posted.  I assure you.  Again.  Are you finished here?  Or do you just post compulsively because you cannot  resist this 'ainslie bash'?

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

 Ainslie, posting as witsend on Naked Scientists:   

Again, the link to 'over unity' and perpetual motion is a misconcpetion.  And it is not true that 'no-one has presented' such a device.  There are any number of such.  The truth is that no-one has managed to publish in a reviewed journal.  I never believed this before my own experience of it.  Now I know it to be true.  The 'lock out' is not at universities but at the owners of those journals.

If you know anyone who could apply the technology - feel free.  There are no patent restrictions on this.  I only took out the patent to ensure that it was published.  That means that it is and has been in the public domain for the last ten years.  I am now, for the first time, doing everying I reasonably can, to get the information out there. It is really useable on torches, and lighting generally.  Especially low energy LED's. The restrictions, as written apply to the MOSFET.  It needs that intrisic diode to allow the current path from the collapsing fields.  It would ne nice if these could be made more robust as it could then be used on higher wattages - boilers and so forth.  Not so good for signals because of that high frequency - so no good for cell phones. My own interst in this technology is only in the hopes that it will be used.  I really don't want financial rewards.  My actual interest is in the field model.  Here's there's enormous promise.

Regarding the need to avoid referencing over unity.  You're probably right.  But I'm not a marketer and I don't intend capitalising on the technology.
As mentioned.  I just want the technology to be used.  By the way - it would also be very useful in battery cars, not to power the car but to recharge those batteries.

and a reply from Vern:

If it works as a battery charger just make it into a charger for small batteries. If you have a working model, it would be a simple matter.     

witsend:

   Vern - I am not an engineer.  I really do not know how to promote this technology.  I need others to take it up - if interested.  What I would really like is to find some academics to test this device from their homes.  That way - no bad 'press' so to speak.  My hope is perhaps to reach such an academic audience.  I'm not sure that there are any at this forum.  The technology is available - usable - free - clean - exploitable - anything you want.  Just don't ask me to promote it.  I have no idea how to do this. And I'm not an electrical engineer.

I'd like to remind you that you said you'd test it if you saw merit? Perhaps you could get it onto your bench.  You'd know how to exploit it.  It's such an easy circuit to set up.

There's always an interesting first reaction to seeing the numbers.  It takes a while to digest it.  Unity, as defined by our Laws, definitely does not apply to electric applications.         

witsend:

  it seems that this forum is not going to get the experiment replicated, as hoped.  Is there any interest in the field model?  That - when understood - shows a much more dynamic potential in energy transfer.  Has anyone understood it enough to see where it points?  I'm afraid the ideas may be too obtuse and badly explained to be immediately evident.  But that is a really interesting field of development and I would love to be involved.  Here I fondly believe that not only is there a cheaper cleaner form of generating electricity - but the real means of defeating gravity - et al.  I think so, in any event. I can see ways to applying 'broken symmetries' that should produce some interesting effects.  I don't have the wherewithall to test it but I can explain what's needed.   

Vern:

     
   The problem is that anyone capable of doing the experiment already knows that it can't work.