Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

@ picowatt
Since you wont post this I will. then maybe you could answer her contextually.

I believe I did...

Unless you mean I should to respond to her childish "but you're fat and stupid" arguments.  That's her game...

[evolvingape]

Rosemary tells a flat-out lie that the duty cycle for the circuit initially referred to by gmeast is on for ~3.5% of the time.

The duty cycle is exactly the reverse (close to 97% on), and as a consequence there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the heat observed (inaccurate and vague though those observations were)

I was wondering when someone would post they had noticed that...

"You said what ?"

I said "I SMELL A RAT"

[picowatt]

What on earth does she mean by "inductance from HELL"?

I am not familiar with that term.  Is that an industry accepted acronym or abbreviation?

I wonder which inductance she apparently disputes?  Are the wire lengths connecting the batteries to the circuit not each six to eight feet long as they appear in the March video?  Are the battery interconnect leads not around one foot each?

Is the formula for calculating the inductance of a straight wire under dispute?

I really do not know what is in dispute, it is all pretty straight forward and standard, with many references available online.


ADDED:

I suppose I should have also defined "FLA" battery for those that don't use search engines.  FLA is a "Flooded Lead Acid" battery.  I was merely distinguishing between a gel cell, AGM, VRLA or other type of lead acid battery. 

[Magluvin]

@ picowatt
Since you wont post this I will. then maybe you could answer her contextually.

You guys were right. She did come back under a fake name.  Yousaidwhat=Rose A

You can see the that the wording seems different, but its her. Mostly it is what is being said and why. I see nobody over there that would come here and say what Yousaidwhat is, except for Rose.

Lol, she just could not take it any longer. She just had to come back under a fake name and the same attitude, and it shows.

And after all the talk of others hacking into her computer, here she tries to deceive Stephan and us in order to have the right to post in a forum she was banned from.

I have to say, I must apologize to some of you guys for things that I had said in the past when defending Rose, I mean Yousaidwhat, same thing. I did not understand her madness. It becomes clearer every day

Mags

[TinselKoala]

You guys crack me up. "The Boss".  " Mr sean"!? What the hell is wrong with you.? Are you that inadequate that you need to have people to address you by a title? Hellooo.  This is the internet remember.  Both of you just nobodies.  Floating around the ethernet trying to get folks to think that you matter. No I would not be willing to state what my qualifications are.  As a professional I am not exactly proud of engaging with you bastards.

Bastards? Would you care to provide proof of that statement? Or of ANY of your current set of assertions? YOU appear to be seriously misled AND a liar to boot. Bastards? Whether or not my birth was "legitimate" has no bearing on the truth. If you can REFUTE any of the things we have said here with FACTS, checkable outside references and demonstrations of your own.... feel free to do so. Slinging your own particular brand of crap.... thinly disguised AINS-LIES..... just shows clearly who YOU are and says nothing at all about us bastards.

You dont need to tell me you have no professional qualifications.  It is obvious.  Until you can provide links to those files you rifled from Ainslie I get it that your work is in IT. 

There's the LYING ACCUSATION again. Since you are so ineffably STUPID to believe that we bastards have the skill and ability to "RIFLE" Ainslie's computer.... yet we are too kind or incompetent to leave behind a keylogger or just have her computers format their drives....... I am going to ask you to provide EVIDENCE for your assertion that anything was "rifled" from anyone's computers. But I know that YOU CANNOT.
EVERY SINGLE BIT OF DATA THAT I HAVE POSTED FROM AINSLIE HAS COME FROM HER OWN PUBLIC FORUM POSTS, most of them from this forum, Energetic Form, Naked Scientists forum and her own several blogs. Not only that but the sources are given either in the filenames or the posts themselves. You want to accuse.... bring some proof along with you, or people are going to think that YOU are actually the deluded paranoid Ainslie, yourself. This continuing accusation is laughable... and libellous. And it also indicates the incompetence of Ainslie... and you. Why aren't MY computers being rifled, if it's so easy to do? You are indeed an idiot for continuing to make this silly accusation.

I need to be careful when and where I post.

Yes, perhaps you do, or people will realize who you really are. This post refers.

And about that bloglink.  Do you really think anyone believes that rot?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.
I've given lots of links to Ainslie's blogs where she lies and gives false information or bad math and bogus conclusions... or gives a MORE ACCURATE reportage of her experiment than is given in the "papers".  "THE WATER WASN'T ACTUALLY BOILING... THERE WERE SMALL BUBBLES..." The link to this statement of hers, made on her blog on the day after the trial in question, has been linked to many times.

And that dutycycle inversion -- that's crap. 

CRAP? I think you ARE Ainslie now, since you lie and insult and sling your CRAP with every sentence.
The circuit is given in schematics, in black and white. EVERYONE who has constructed the circuit AS GIVEN has found the duty cycle inversion. BUILD IT FOR YOURSELF and see. You can report your work... with proof of your assertion.... right here. We will all be eager to see it.  EVEN GMEAST confirmed this fact that the duty cycle of the Quantum circuit is inverted from what is claimed .... and now he's using a circuit that was NEVER POSTED OR CLAIMED BY AINSLIE... using a DIFFERENT duty cycle than she claimed....and you think that's a replication of the Quantum circuit and claim. It's not. Additional proof is provided by my work from 2009 and the Energetic Forum threads from that time ... where it is clear, over and over, that Ainslie and many of her minions believed that when the DRAIN voltage in her circuit is HIGH, that the mosfet is ON and conducting, and when the DRAIN voltage is LOW, the mosfet is off. Hence the inverted duty cycle. Further proof is provided by the FACT that when the inverted, 96.3 percent ON duty cycle is actually used, Ainslie's reported time-temperature profiles are easily reproduced.
But of course we know that you will not be building the circuit and reporting on it here... because that would show that you are wrong, and besides.... Ainslie is incompetent in such matters and so her sock puppets are too.

GO AHEAD... PROVE ME WRONG. You cannot.

That circuit was demonstrated replicated accredited.  By guys and companies that gave their real names.

Demonstrated? The only demonstration that we know about is the Demo Video of the new 5-mosfet circuit. We know of no credible provable demonstration of the COP>17 circuit. Yes, the COP > INFINITY circuit was demonstrated... that's clear and there is the video... that Ainslie claimed she did NOT post, until the proof was given that she DID post it... that gives the evidence of the demonstration. And what evidence.... mostly evidence of incompetence and mendacity. One schematic is shown in the video, a different one is asserted by the narrator, yet a different one was actually used, and two more different ones are given in the "papers", and the FG Black lead in the demo  is placed so as to HIDE a current path in the system. So what was demonstrated was a bunch of mendacity and error -- with 5 DIFFERENT schematics claimed... and the "explanation" of the circuit's behavior is given in the cartoons in the second paper-- which do not correspond to ANY of them. Accredited? No. Cite references to this accreditation that you claim. You cannot.  Replicated? Yes, it's been "replicated" many times. How many of the "replicators" used the actual circuit she published and explored THAT circuit fully? Only two that I know of: ME, and FTC. I am very sure that you are familiar with FTC's work, Ainslie...er, I mean "Yousaidwhat". And when those "real names" have been looked for and contacted.... they are found not to exist, or to have only confirmed the calibration of the Fluke scopemeters, or respond like Professer Khan has done with ridicule and derision. NOBODY that Ainslie has "mentioned" will confirm her claims. And whenever anyone actually offers or tries to contact those people... Ainslie freaks out and does everything she can to prevent it. And we know why too.

You want me to believe that they lied? But you tell the truth? Then I need to be more stupid than you take me for.  The serial liar here is not ainlsie.   You lot think you can trash her work?  Then think again.

Evidence of Ainslie's lies are given throughout this thread. She lies with practically every post, every sentence she writes. As long as the two different schematics representing the same experiment are posted... SHE LIES, and the evidence is there for anyone to see. Can you PROVE that  anything we have said here is incorrect, or a lie? You cannot, because we are not incorrect, nor have we lied about anything... in stark contrast to Ainslie's RECORDED LIES, of which there are many.

No, you don't have to believe ANYTHING without proof. Where is your proof of any of your assertions? It is conspicuously lacking. It is Ainslie who constantly makes assertions without proof... .and even when she does provide an outside reference.. or mentions WIKI... upon checking it is found that her assertions aren't even supported by her own references. She asserted very insultingly and arrogantly that there is "NO SUCH ANIMAL AS INDUCTIVE REACTANCE".... and told us to check the WIKI. So we did..... and what did we find, there, Yousaidwhat?

We here have given PROOFS of every assertion we've made, and support for our conjectures as well.

For example.... my recent assertion that the SCHEMATICS IN THE "PAPERS" conflict with the actual circuit used is PROVEN by the photo of the first design with the FG black lead clipped in incorrectly, and the photo from the VIDEO DEMO taken after the data in the papers... also showing it in the wrong place, different from the (two different) schematics given in the two papers. That's evidence supporting my assertion that this same hookup was used to generate the data in the daft manuscripts, invalidating them totally.

And there is also the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT that Ainslie LIED OUTRAGEOUSLY about the circuit being used, from March 22 2011, the release date of the video, until April 18 2011 when .99 carefully checked and found that the ACTUAL circuit in the demo did NOT correspond to what Ainslie claimed it was. Over 400 forum posts discussing the WRONG, lying, schematic.... and Ainslie is on record admitting the deception and saying she wanted to CONTINUE THE DECEPTION.

Again... if you want to REFUTE anything that is said here with FACTS, outside checkable REFERENCES, or demonstrations of your own.... please feel free to do so. Meanwhile..... you sure look like an Ainslie sock-puppet to me, because you are bringing NOTHING of your own to this affray. And what you do bring is demonstrably wrong.

For example, I have a birth certificate that shows my parents were married, at the time of my birth. DO YOU?

Here are some easy questions for you, Yousaidwhat, or for ANY Ainslie supporter to answer:

On what dates do the winter and summer solstices, the spring and autumn equinoxes occur? Do you happen to know?
Does inductive reactance exist, or is there "no such animal"?
Is it possible to dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 96 minutes WITHOUT boiling away 700 ml of water and making the broom closet quite uncomfortably warm?
Is it legitimate to publish TWO DIFFERENT schematics referring to the same experiment, and in fact to post the SAME PAPER in two different places with DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS?

Just answer these questions, Yousaidwhat...... they are all in reference to claims Ainslie has made, or "publications" on which she is the principal author bearing responsibility for all that is within. And there are many more similar questions that can be asked... and whose answers Ainslie does not want anyone to know.

But we know you will not answer them in particular, because the answers... the truth.... will YET AGAIN show that Ainslie is an ignorant, arrogant liar, and you are her sock puppet.