Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Little TK

Lest you think I'm ignoring you...  ... and to prove that you're very much on my mind - here's a very small tribute to a very small cause.

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg2455.html#msg2455

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys and Girls,

I've started a thread on our forum to answer little TK's allegations that he uses to misinform you all.  I'll simply post the links as they're required.  Do go and read there.  It will be one way to ensure that those more 'flagrantly' incorrect posts of his, are actually addressed.


Here's the first such
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2461.html#msg2461

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

More lies, Ainslie? That's what we expect from you and that's what we always get.

Why don't you answer the "allegations" here? There have been plenty of them that you have dodged.

What about .99's explanation of the function generator in your circuit? Can you now finally grasp that it is both a power supply that can be in series with your main battery, AND it passes current through itself? That's an allegation that you aren't going to be handling.

What about Brian Ahern's bad math and .99's correction of it? No comment from you? I allege that your conclusions are based on the same kind of bad math, and I've given examples of it that you STILL allow to stand, like the 5.9 megaJoules figure in your paper that is right now on Rossi's JNP. Are you going to be dealing with that allegation there, or here? No, you aren't.

What about the issue of AC vs. DC coupling that .99 has been discussing with you? Brushing that one under the rug too, I see.

And of course there is the continuing allegation that many of your scopeshots show a blown mosfet, invalidating your papers and experimental reports. Picowatt would like an explanation... and so would a lot of other people. Will you be explaining this issue? Perhaps you will reveal the schematic you REALLY used to make those scopeshots. Perhaps not.

And of course there is the continuing allegation that you have cherrypicked your data, selecting only that which supports your contention, and even the allegation that you no longer even HAVE your original data, since nobody has ever seen it but you. And your claimed co-authors, maybe, of course. Some of them.

Lots to deal with, should keep you busy for a while. But none of us are under any illusions that you will actually answer the questions, correct the mistakes, withdraw the false claims, and release your data. That would be out of character for you.
What you will do is SPIN, bloviate, insult and lie, misrepresent and misquote, and come to phony bogus paranoid conclusions, as you always have done and always will continue to do.

[MileHigh]

BTW - It's a pleasure to make a post and KNOW that it can't be followed by 6 or seven follow-up posts SCREAMING dissention or invective.  What a pleasure.

Yes, copy-paste is quite challenging.

It will be funny to watch you turn on the people that are testing your circuit assuming that they know what they are doing.   In your cover letter you make reference to two people, and I am almost wondering if you patched up your feud with some people down under.  It would be hilarious if you ended up sending your setup to "A." and "A." because neither of them have the slightest clue what they are doing.  There is a good chance that you would get a report endorsing your setup from them because they are just as hapless and clueless as you.

What a joke this whole thing has become.  You are clearly pathologically obsessed with this and nothing will stop you.  You refuse to listen to knowledgeable people when they tell you that you are wrong.

So you are either crazy or you are a fifth column psyops operation run by the government and Big Oil to discredit all free energy research.  ha ha ha

[TinselKoala]

Hi Guys and Girls,

I've started a thread on our forum to answer little TK's allegations that he uses to misinform you all.  I'll simply post the links as they're required.  Do go and read there.  It will be one way to ensure that those more 'flagrantly' incorrect posts of his, are actually addressed.


Here's the first such
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2461.html#msg2461

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Yep, 100 percent lies, just as I thought.

In the first place: Note the scopeshot below, showing the mosfet drain trace (the GREEN trace) going LOW during the Q1 ON time to exactly the level calculated by PW, about 1/5 of the total battery voltage when Q1 is ON, and when Q1 is OFF and the Q2s are oscillating, the oscillations bring the drain trace down even lower than that. Just as I and PW said... and also JUST AS AINSLIE SAID HERSELF in the blogpost that FTC quoted yesterday. An d I am not even talking about the BATTERY, as she claims in the post, I am talking about the MOSFET DRAIN(S), which she mistook for the battery signal and/or the "load" signal in the earlier work. Again she lies and misrepresents both my old work and my present words.

In the second place... she lies about my work with the earlier claim of COP>17. I most certainly did make the exact same oscillations, showed them on the exact same model oscilloscope, and I duplicated her load heat profiles. And I was, and still am, right about the duty cycle issue and the 555 timer functionality in the Quantum article. See the second image below for the very same oscillations, "random aperiodic Hartley resonance" or whatever she called them. If I didn't tell you, you would think this was one of hers, but it's not, it's from my work, which she lies about over and over, just as now. And I never mentioned Harvey, although I believe he did indeed reproduce the circuit. The problem was that he didn't wind up agreeing with Ainslie. Experimental aptitudes? I laugh at you, Ainslie, fumblefingered battery destroyer and liar.

And in the third place.... same as the first place, refuted by her own scopeshots and blog posts yet again. Ainslie is a liar and an ignoramus, cannot comprehend what she reads and so makes up her own fractured versions, and doesn't even understand her own circuit well enough to discuss it rationally.