Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MilesOFFcourse

Are you referring to this award by Refried?

Dearest Rosemary,

I've been reading this TarBaby thread for what is now over 125 highly fascinating pages. Your travails with expert and highly credible correspondents has been, quite frankly, incredible.

I have never before seen on the internet such a prolonged yet decisive battle between uniquely equipped  combatants. There has also been a great deal of high level discussion on precise scientific and technical points, yet I digress from my primary message .

All can see that TarBaby exists simply as a type of tribute to your unique claims and persistence. A tribute indeed and what follows in its wake is an indelible record and testimony of your contribution to a completely new form of science ...

At every turn you have evaded direct and valid questions related to your technology. Skillful maneuvering in the field.

You have successfully avoided any practical testing of your device as required for discussion. Brilliant tactical delay.

When your technical knowledge and credibility has been called into question on focus of pristine point you have misdirected and asserted an opposing viewpoint,  without basis. Simply remarkable.

These are your primary virtues. Not to be overlooked, when faced with an overwhelming opponent to your views you have insulted and libeled in text book fashion. The nuclear option.  This approach usually silences the weak willed who have no true right to proffer a valid argument or dissenting opinion.

You have in fact blazed a trail here in opposition to the accepted values of the Open Source community. Yours is a new and innovative protocol ...

As other prizes and accolades are now out of reach, we have decided that an important step be taken. On behalf of the Committee, myself and the extended TarBaby family we would like to present you with:

The La Mancha Prize

Credo and Quotation -

"And so, to sum it all up, I perceive everything I say as absolutely true, and deficient in nothing whatever, and paint it all in my mind exactly as I want it to be." Miguel de Cervantes - The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (Volume 1, Chapter 25, pg. 157)

Congratulations on your accomplishments which will never be forgotten.

In the service of science, ever sincerely,

ReFried

I've answered it here...

My dear ReFried,  It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded.  Certainly not on this forum.  Or in fact on any forum.  Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it.      I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak.  But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can.  Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's.  His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING.  I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal.  He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'.  I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent.  He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model.  I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements.   TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME.  I cannot.  He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them.  He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another.  I simply CANNOT.  My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.

So.  Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact.  Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

[mrsean2k]

@TK

I don't think she does much "lying" in the straightforward sense, but she manages to convince herself she has a case.

Most of the wilder claims she's documenting would need a seed of truth or misunderstood observation.

As far as the temperature measured for the water, I guess that would be confusing it with the temperature on the surface of the tortured heating element itself?

As far as the water temperature increasing with not power, that's the hot element cooling itself into it's surroundings and raising the temperature

And as far as "bubble" in the water, could they be developed on the surface of the element where it's in direct contact with the water?


20W although substantial, isn't *that* much; certainly you wouldn't want to wait for your morning tea from it, and at a brief google, those in-car 12V heating elements look to draw a lot more power, and most people complain about how long they take to work.

[TinselKoala]

You can read for yourself her near realtime account of the "water to boil" trial in her blog posts number 117 and 118. These posts were made the same day as the events in question. Compare her account THEN with what it's morphed into now.

She does not use a steady state where she sets the controls and lets the system run. She "TUNES" until she sees the waveform she wants. Has the load heated at all during the TUNING process? Mine certainly does.

There is no trusting her accounts at all. 700 ml has morphed into "just under a liter."  The thermocouple reads 104 degrees..... but this is attached to the element, it is NOT the water temperature as she now quotes it. And she says right there: the water was not actually boiling. In other words, she did NOT take just under a liter of water to boil.

And we know what happened. The element got hot. It was one of the trials where she describes "everything cooking" and "brittle offset". She tunes, goes over and sees her tiny bubbles, comes back and sees the flatline signal EVEN THOUGH SHE IS STILL PROVIDING +12 V to the gate of Q1...... and concludes that she is heating for free. Then the next few days she reports something wrong with the apparatus that needs to be fixed, that she gets oscillations but cannot get the load to heat.

Come on. She blew ANOTHER mosfet and doesn't want to admit it to anyone. The story is no longer one of error but one of fraud. She has covered up data, tried to hide variations in circuitry, lied about conditions and results of experiments, and she KNOWS that the current in Q1 is necessary for high heat and that this current can ONLY come from the battery and cannot in any way be affected by the oscillations, and she also knows that there is not enough REAL power in the oscillations to "cancel" this high DC power and make the overall average power actually become negative. She actively attempts to conceal this FACT with her bogus calculations and her willfull ignorance.

I maintain: she CANNOT produce high heat in the load without turning the Q1 mosfet on with a positive gate pulse; this current in Q1 will ALWAYS be there, visible on the CVR, when she is producing hight heat. Of course once the mosfet blows the element will take a while to cool down.

In addition.... the long time period trials she has actually posted scope shots from........ look like the one below, mostly. But I don't care.

Let her produce high heat in a load using only a negative bias, as we have been discussing lately here, with no Q1 current. She cannot. There is no evidence other than her statement, in the scenario I have described, that any high heat was produced in a trial that did not use Q1 ON.

And let her produce her high heat using a full 72 volt battery stack and the exact circuit and layout used in the video demonstration. That is, Q1 on the "right" of the diagram. She cannot... not for more than a few minutes. At the end of this few minutes the load will indeed be very hot and the CVR trace will indeed be flatlined.

[TinselKoala]

MilesOFFcourse

Are you referring to this award by Refried?

I've answered it here...

My dear ReFried,  It is not that OFTEN that my talents are lauded.  Certainly not on this forum.  Or in fact on any forum.  Or, in fact, anywhere at all ... come to think of it.      I feel that my 'light' has been 'hidden under a bushel'... so to speak.  But being a senior citizen - which I am - and being therefore both frail and mentally arthritic - I am only able to hobble along as best I can.  Therefore - while I'm delighted that you applaud these poor efforts of mine - I'm afraid that my innate 'modesty' is such that I would rather not have these efforts equated to those of TK's.  His genius is to AVER that he KNOWS EVERYTHING.  I - on the other hand - accept that I am a mere mortal.  He, like MileHigh, claims to know the 'real truth'.  I am obliged to confess that I am NOT that omnipotent.  He catapults science into dimensions that have NOTHING to do with the standard model.  I am hobbled by that model with ALL its attendant requirements.   TK can perform miracles of measurement without reference to TIME.  I cannot.  He can deduce measurements without making them and can draw conclusions without concluding them.  He can show one thing and ALLEGE another and IMPLY yet another and INFER YET another.  I simply CANNOT.  My science - unfortunately - depends on measured results.

So.  Any perceived similarity between us - is certainly NOT based on the fact.  Which really means that I must also, sadly, but in the interests of the 'real truth', decline that award of yours and recommend that you pass it to TK - as the 'really truly' quixotic genius of the two of us.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

SPAM, and full of lies to boot. Ainslie, you know nothing of any standard model. You parrot words and phrases about which you have no clue.  And your posts drip with venom each and every one.

Get off your high horse and do some real work for a change, you thumbless dilettante. Careful you don't break a nail.

[mrsean2k]

@TK

I thought I was paraphrasing the theories you'd advanced previously. All it needs is one plausible alternative for each of the claimed anomalous runs, and that's that, and you've more than covered it.

I'd agree whole-heartedly that very little of what she says in relation to her tests can be identified as objectively "true", in that there's any evidence of rigour in the way that the tests are carried out, or clarity in the way they're reported. She's unreliable as a source of information and I think it's obvious she won't be providing anything that could be confirmed as reliable here (except unwittingly). And maybe never again if she pops up somewhere else, in a way that could be challenged. Once bitten etc.

There will never be a "dim broad" test for the reasons people have already pointed out.

All the same, although I can't find any reason to disagree with your assertion that she's an outright fraud, I mostly prefer not to speculate on motivation - and I think you've fisked her shots and responses in a way that makes it largely unnecessary; there's nothing to her claims.


ETA: and lest I stand accused of being Wilby again, although we've had arguments before, I appreciate the effort that's gone into dissecting these claims, I've learnt a lot from watching the process.