Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Brilliant!!  Ingenious!!

You're doing quite well Rosie in holding your own against
the onslaught.

Very ladylike too!  (As always.)

On the contrary, Sea Monkey, newbie, Ainslie has not been able to answer any of the important questions concerning the circuit and the specific points mentioned by picowatt. In addition, as I continue to point out, her various different accounts of the same experimental trial are just that: DIFFERENT. For example the "paper" claims that the water was "taken to boil"... but as you yourself can clearly see in the descriptions given in her blog posts 117 and 118 are at variance with that description in the manuscript. Claim after claim of hers has been refuted soundly and yet she simply brushes the refutations under the rug and.... continues on without addressing the issue at all.

Do you have any technical knowledge at all, Sea Monkey? Do you understand what Ainslie means when she says this:

What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'.

And do you understand how this video refutes her claim, and has profound implications as to her lack of understanding the operation of her circuit? Do you understand that the bias source MUST supply current in order for the  magic oscillations to happen? Do you understand that Ainslie's claims in this regard are false?

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


I'd be happy to hear some technical information, some real criticism with checkable references, or some demonstrations of your own, Sea Monkey. But your pointless cheerleading from the "peanut gallery" is just adding noise, and you aren't even correct in your cheers.

[TinselKoala]

My dear little TK

If I didn't know better I'd have thought you were in love. All that PASSION

Rosie Pose

I have a passion for the truth, Ainslie, something to which you are a stranger.

Was the water boiling? NO, Ainslie, it was not, therefore you lie in your paper claims.

Are AHERN's battery capacity calculations correct? NO, Ainslie, they are not, and you are lying EVERY MOMENT that you allow them to stay, uncorrected.

"My dear little TK" --- You are a disgusting and ignorant hypocrite, you scrawny wench parrot.

[mrsean2k]

Rosie Ainslie took a MOSFET
Beat it like a ginger child
Watch it howl; record the squealing
Spikey waveforms running wild


Her conclusion, “It’s a Zipon!”
“Energy from empty space!”
But poor Rosie is an idiot
Misconstruing every trace


Rosie’s calculations offer
“Power IS energy (per the Wiki)”
No citation will convince her
But Tar Baby’s awful sticky


Here comes TK, with his chopper
Sliced the data into strips
Lo! the pulsing DC power
Fries her theory, fries her chips


NERDs are spinning in confusion
Tricked by Rosie’s wasted years
Sucked into her grand delusion
Vacuum’s howl between her ears

[TinselKoala]

Hey, Ainslie.... do any of these names mean anything to you?

Dr Garrett
J. Marriott
Eddie Tarnow
Viv Crone
John Wilson
Colin Bower
Eddie Petrie
John Tarnowski

A somebody named Tarnow at CSIR in South Africa .... and another named Tarnowski at ABB in South Carolina.... what are the chances of that? Small world, I guess.

And of course Dr. Garrett....

who headed up the CSIR wrote me a patronising letter and explained that I was unschooled and naive which is why I persisted with these fantasies. He considered the matter "closed". He then went to Australia to head up their CSIR there. Good riddance - but his attitude was quintessentially what I usually got.

So it appears that all this prior "endorsement" and "vetting" of your box.... is also not quite as you have reported it lately.

This really cracks me up:

After testing, they shipped the "box" to someone in America - on my application - but, for the life of me - I cannot remember to who (sic) - or where.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I have a passion for the truth, Ainslie, something to which you are a stranger.

Was the water boiling? NO, Ainslie, it was not, therefore you lie in your paper claims.

Are AHERN's battery capacity calculations correct? NO, Ainslie, they are not, and you are lying EVERY MOMENT that you allow them to stay, uncorrected.

Let me say this again, little TK

You are obsessively, disproportionately and inappropriately interested in EVERYTHING to do with our technology and with me.  It is WAY beyond reason.  I am an old woman who has nursed an insight into the transfer of energy that I've been at some pains to recommend be more thoroughly researched by those who understand these things.  A harmless interest - with MUCH potential.  You've assumed the right to comment beyond your expertise and with the sole purpose of deflecting the interest that it deserves.  You've been effective in silencing me on this - on these forums.  But right now I'm no longer 'in reach'.  It's hit the wider public and you will no longer be able to monopolise commentary.  Quite apart from which - your contributions, thus far, have been SO inappropriate - that you've effectively put yourself outside any kind of respectable 'REFERENCE'.  Which makes any past and future efforts of yours both redundant and irrelevant.

Those sad efforts of yours to imply lunacy - or gross stupidity?  All that?  It no longer holds water.  People aren't interested in my character.  Or anything about me.  Only you are.  Don't you get it yet?  They're only interested in the potential in that technology.  And you have, UNFORTUNATELY for you, FORTUNATELY for me, been highly instrumental in drawing their attention to our work - albeit unintended.  The experts are easily able to see through your SPIN - and your POOR ARGUMENT - and your DREADFUL experimental aptitudes.  And they want to look at the TECHNOLOGY.  ONLY.  My involvement in this is ENTIRELY immaterial.  If I've lied about any presentations at all - they'll pick it up.  Rest easy on this.  They're considerably more intelligent than you or I.  They're certainly better qualified.  And MOST essentially - they're impartial.  Which is entirely lacking in your BEST efforts. 

You've done no-one any damage at all - other than yourselves.  I've warned you about this.  Repeatedly.  For God's sake.  How do you justify these obsessive - RIDICULOUS - hysterical posts of yours?  There's a small readership of these forums that comprise those who are 'hunting' for new technologies.  And it was INEVITABLE that once we were published they'd come forward with their proposals to test this.  You seem to have forgotten this.  Or you were that reckless you assumed we'd never get published. 

It's out there now.  And it has nothing further to do with me.  We've open sourced EVERYTHING.  And we're only anxious that this technology get progressed.  Correctly I don't even need to be told how anyone progresses this.  But I hope that the likes of Poynty and Groundloop will engage with this.  Eventually.  And nor can be we accused of inventing anything.  We're simply using well known CEMF to improve energy efficiency.  And that this is required is certainly explained in our model - but has NOTHING to do with a discovery.  That belongs to our science greats.  My mission, where I deserve a prize - is that I didn't fold - when I brought this evidence to the table.  Notwithstanding your own and others rather neurotic and entirely excessive best efforts. 

LOL.  I'm enjoying a rare sense of achievement.  It's good to know that reason eventually prevails.  And I'm now just waiting to see who is going to progress this that they can get the public attention it deserves.  It's round about now that I'll be able to close the chapter on my contributions to this.  And then I can concentrate on those things that I enjoy - such as writing and painting and even theoretical physics.  But without all that ATTENTION that you keep throwing my way.

Rosie Pose