Testing the TK Tar Baby

[KHaeus]

TK,

Please understand that I do not defend anybody's standpoint here. I am certainly not qualified enough to enter this technical discussion in this super-long thread. But I went through most of it and found it very interesting, but it's becoming quite tidious to sort out the highlights from the rest of your battle.

Again, for me it's not about he or she is ultimately right, it's about living in peace with Each other and make this world a better place. Free Energy is of great importance, but consciousness will be required as well to make the right use of it.

Peace,
Kurt

[TinselKoala]

@KHaeus: I think I understand your viewpoint. Do you understand mine?

To the extent that anyone is suckered into believing her, they are wasting their time being hopeful because they are responding to _math errors_ that lead to _wrong conclusions_ based on a fixed idea that is held regardless of external evidence. This is much worse than simply tinkering along with one's pet project and theory... because no matter how whacky your theory might be, it is absolutely necessary that whatever _math_ you use MUST BE CORRECT, else you might as well be in a cartoon fairy tale.

Certainly the forum would be a quieter and gentler place if Ainslie and her ilk were allowed to make just any old claim at all without being challenged. Or if, having been challenged, she would consider the merits and correct her errors. But, as the monk asked... is that right?

I am strongly of the opinion that one should not make claims that one cannot support with evidence. Conclusions illogically based upon error-filled math done on badly collected data, performed with the expressed purpose of proving an agenda... is not right. Pretending to discuss a topic with experts, when one cannot even communicate in their common language or understand their concepts due to a lack of basic knowledge... is not right. Blatantly lying about her own work and the work of others, not giving credit where due, hiding information about historical events, refusal to provide original data for inspection.... is not right.

Ainslie presents all these behaviours and more to such an extent that I have (with some help) coined a new phrase to describe it:
It's pseudoscientific misconduct.
And allowing that to persist unchecked...  that is just not right.

Cheers--- and thanks for watching, sorry about the light...
--TK

(Did you watch Her video of the demonstration from last March? There was one schematic shown in the video ( a single mosfet without specifying the FG black lead's connection point); another schematic verbally described ( "5 mosfets in parallel"); a third schematic posted on the internet (5 in parallel but with the FG black lead misplaced) and finally, .99's discovery and reveal, after almost a MONTH, of the ACTUAL schematic used in the video demo. So there were FOUR different schematics claimed, given, and finally discovered, before that demonstration could be understood. Over four hundred thread comments mistakenly discussing the "wrong" schematics happened, including .99's attempts at simulating the scopeshots and being puzzled why he couldn't quite get it... before the correct schematic was known... and then Ainslie claimed that she knew it all along and was just "testing" to see if .99 could figure it out. Think about that little escapade, and ask yourself... is that right?)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - in the light of TK's previous comments - and MileHigh and picowatt's - for that matter - and since they are all MOST anxious to ignore this follow of post of mine - I've decided to transfer it here - directly.  Just to serve the very real requirement of countering their endless spin.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Guys,  I think I need to elaborate here to prevent any further wild speculation that's going on elsewhere.

While that lab have indeed replicated our numbers they have NOT yet done comparative draw down tests.  They most certainly have seen a depletion of battery voltage - but not tested against it's watt hour rating.  The only comments on hand related to what was observed is that there's a negative voltage which is unarguable.  And that they've measured the voltage directly across their batteries to find that the oscillation across there is - indeed - as robust as we've reported.  You will recall the earlier concern that oscillation was not actually across those batteries. 

They are well aware of the 'public' nature of our proposed tests and the fact that this is being 'open sourced'.  They have suggested that we apply a resistor - not sure of it's details - that is heat sensitive.  I think - the idea is that this gives an accurate measure of wattage.  But I'm not sure if I've got this right.  And I'm not sure if it measures output or input or what?  They'll send me the required. 

In the event that we show a marked improvement between the control and the experiment in those live screening tests - then they will be MOST interested in taking this technology further.  But as required - they'll wait for our own test results on that.   They'll monitor those tests - have requested us to apply some software to the filming - for their easy viewing - and will engage as and when they need any specific measurements made.  And I say that it's 'required' for us to do those comparative draw down tests - is because it's the courtesy to our open source community.  They are under no obligations to cater to this cause.

They asked for the equipment for another week.  I was unable to oblige them.  We compromised on a short 3 extra days.   And there IS no report from them.  I'm hoping to get some data on a floppy - but it's not entirely certain yet that I'll get this.  They were under no obligations to supply anything at all.  But they now know enough about the apparatus to build their own and any required variants.

It has been an ABSOLUTE pleasure dealing with them.  Would that our forum trolls could learn from their  professionalism.  It would advance this and any such energy efficient technologies - exponentially.  But we all know why they prefer NOT to advance this.  Indeed.  Our trolls' agenda is diametrically opposed to this.  THEIR intention is to simply quash any possible evidence of any benefit at all.

Again,
Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

You are still stuck in the paradox of claiming "COP infinity" which means that no power is being consumed by the batteries - in fact you claim power is being returned to the batteries - and then claiming that an increased rundown time has significance.

Your claim is that the batteries will never run down, not that they will run down more slowly.

Beyond that, the rate that you draw current from a battery, and in fact even the waveform of the current itself, will affect how long the batteries will last.  With these complications, doing draw-down tests on a "level playing field" between the control and the test is very complicated.

And of course to go back to the original point, you have a paradox that means you shouldn't even be doing draw-down tests.  If what you say is true, a small set of batteries should be able to drive your test setup for one full year non stop and the batteries should still be fully charged.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

You are still stuck in the paradox of claiming "COP infinity" which means that no power is being consumed by the batteries - in fact you claim power is being returned to the batteries - and then claiming that an increased rundown time has significance.

Your claim is that the batteries will never run down, not that they will run down more slowly.

Beyond that, the rate that you draw current from a battery, and in fact even the waveform of the current itself, will affect how long the batteries will last.  With these complications, doing draw-down tests on a "level playing field" between the control and the test is very complicated.

And of course to go back to the original point, you have a paradox that means you shouldn't even be doing draw-down tests.  If what you say is true, a small set of batteries should be able to drive your test setup for one full year non stop and the batteries should still be fully charged.

MileHigh

MileHigh - while I've no objection to disclaiming whole chapters of pure calumny directly onto this forum - and that only occasionally - but I would rather NOT engage in a serious discussion here.  I've posted my answer to this on our own forum.

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2614.html#msg2614