Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear little TK

I have had my experimental work published in MAJOR peer reviewed journals....

Unfortunately this can ONLY be claimed by referencing those publications.  Otherwise we'll all assume - YET AGAIN - that you're fraudulently alleging what you should be proving.  Which is very much in keeping with your style.  I look forward to the time that we all know your identity TK.  Then perhaps we can all learn to admire you with the same fervour that you manage.  Unless and until - sadly - we all KNOW you to be a malicious bully and like all bullies - a coward.  You're incapable of original thought which also means you'd have nothing to publish.  And your statements in this thread prove you to be considerably less than professional.  No-one - not even your little gang of 'like minded' could pretend that you know the meaning of the term.   

Kindest regards notwithstanding,
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Sean,

You are at the point where even you don't believe what you're claiming...

Why would I waste time on 'belief'?  When we've got PROOF?  More than 200 individual tests.  More than 360 screen shots.  And between 20 000 and 500 000 x 4 samples per screen shot.  ALL of them measuring COP INFINITY?

Belief, opinion, conjecture, allegation, insinuation .... ALL THAT?  It's only you and TK and his little gang that need such nonsense.   It has NOTHING to do with science.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello MileHigh

Yes, it really is that bad.  Just like the current flowing through the function generator issue kills your credibility completely.  Just the fact that you are attempting to analyze a circuit where the current is actually flowing straight through the function generator kills your credibility completely.

It's one thing to repeat your point in just about every post you make.  It's another thing to repeat the same point in one post.  But it's beyond the pale when you repeat the point after each sentence.  If you want to hold anyone's attention MileHigh - aim for 'variety'.  That way we won't suffer the same mind-numbing afflications that your 'fog' subjects you to.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

@TK,MH, and all,

This really has become a bit bizarre to say the least.

From what I can gather from her recent posts at her new "forum", the claim of "COP=infinity" only relates to acheiving a negative mean power measurement (congrats TK, you have acheived COP=infinity!!).  She is apparently, at this time,  making no claim that the battery does not run down or that its capacity is exceeded.  However, she seems rather sure that further testing will indeed prove that the battery capacity is exceeded (but apparently does run down).  At the same time, however, she continues to claim that the voltage of the batteries she uses has never dropped below their initial fully charged voltage in, I believe she stated, two years or so (I assume she is not counting the battery that caught fire). 

What is most bizarre, however, is that she now leads the reader to believe that the operation of the Q2 "quad" and their oscllations are of such a great mystery that no one can explain, that she alludes to their operation as possibly related to room temperature superconductivity. (at least that is how I interpret what she is saying referencing the "very cold" and "room temp", read for yourselves and see if that is what you believe she is saying)

With as much discussion, simulation (.99), empirical measurement (TK), and video evidence (TK) that has taken place regarding Q2 since the March demo, it is impossible to believe that she was unable to, or incapable of, absorbing at least some of the data and information those discussions, simulations, measurements and videos provided.

She continues to write as though a function generator cannot pass, source, or sink current, and uses the fact that the circuit can be operated by a 555 as evidence thereof.  The only data we have ever seen relating to a 555 operating the NERD circuit is from the tests TK performed where he did just that.  And just as the Q2 bias current passes thru the FG, the Q2 bias current passed thru TK's 555, necessitating heat sinking of the 555 (and a rather unique circuit arrangement and negative voltage source).

.99 has invested countless hours doing simulations relating to analysis of the observed negative mean power measurement.  Even if she is unable to fully grasp that analysis, his work and TK's replications/measurements should at least cause her to question exactly what the negative mean power measurement may or may not be indicating.

As well, .99 has performed countless hours of simulation regarding how Q2 is biased on and the subsequent bias current that flows thru the FG and the paths for AC current during oscillation (and again TK has provided empirical measurement of the Q2 bias current that flows thru the FG).

She refuses to accept or understand that the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2 which causes Q2 to be biased on.  .99's and TK's work has clearly proven this to be fact, just as one would expect from looking at the schematic.  And, again, when Q2 is biased on, the subsequent bias current flows thru the FG. 

She refuses to acknowledge that in FIG 3 and FIG 7, Q1 is not functioning properly as per the indicated gate drive and lack of current thru the CSR.  Instead, we are told we are reading the 'scope incorrectly, which is odd, as by using the same measurement methods all other traces can be read and are in agreement with the indicated numerical values.  Even a phone call to LeCroy verified that we are reading the 'scope correctly.   

With all the data that has been provided to her regarding these issues, she refuses to acknowledge these explanations and observations as a more likely explanation than that which she provides.  With but only a slight amount of effort and due diligence on her part, all of these explanations and observations could have easily been verified by taking some of this data and discussion to a local EE, Professor, calling LeCroy, etc. 

So, the question is why, with all the discussion and data she has been provided, has she merely moved on to a new "forum" and continued to push her papers and circuit as though there are no logical explanations regarding its operation and measurements, and done nothing to correct or verify the errors that have been pointed out to her?

PW

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

They are actually two separate and distinct yet related points.  That's an example of your "blindness," something that we have seen over and over.  Remember your draft letter for physics and engineering professors?  Same deal, you killed your credibility instantly from the nonsensical prose in the draft.

All that you can do is deny that current flows through the function generator.  Anybody that has taken a course in basic circuit analysis would disagree with you.  It's just a complete farce Rosemary that you will not concede that the main current loop when in negative offset mode flows straight through the function generator itself.  If you have not officially retracted your Joule calculation showing one kilowatt of power dissipation for 1.6 hours then you look like an idiot.  I am pretty sure that you arrived at that number is because you multiplied by the total time of 1.6 hours.  That's so awful that you fall flat on your face and make a mockery of everything that you are attempting to accomplish.  "Free energy researcher that can't measure or calculate energy properly" is a pathetic joke.

For whatever reason, I decided to give you a sense about the "backdrop" behind your whole deal.  It took PW about a week to understand the "backdrop" and many people clearly see this and understand what is going on because of it.

You are unstoppable, but it's a hopeless and fruitless quest you are on.  You and Lawrence are modern-day Donna and Don Quoixtes in the realm of "free energy 'research.'"

Note that windmills are a source of free energy.

MileHigh