Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I think there must be something wrong with Gmeast's reading comprehension.

Gmeast says:

A humorous aside: I spent a little time over at the TK kingdom on OverUnity.com.  Those guys are SO dedicated to the destruction of this technology it leads one to wonder of they have vested interests in Oil and Gas ... maybe even nuclear.  This TK character bashed my previous results saying that my "poor measurement techniques" resulted in a 20% error which is why I am claiming COP>1 performance.  I guarantee that if the circuit was showing a COP of 1.5 he would accuse me of a 50% error.  If it showed 2.0 he would accuse me of 100% error.  These characters are just determined that this technology can't work.  In one of TK's bashing sessions aimed at me, he asked me "...so when are you going to have the last laugh?".  Well I'm beginning to have it now.

Actually, I said THIS:

Using the methodology you describe, in combination with the false precision you often report, an error of 20 percent is well within the realm of possibility. Much more so than a real "overunity" result. In addition, as you would see if you had been paying attention to my demonstrations, the mere fact that you can dissipate more power in the load using a pulsed drive instead of a straight, load-resistance-determined DC drive, or conversely get the same apparent dissipated power in the load using apparently less input with a pulsed drive.... this mere fact is not so remarkable and can be reproduced much more easily than you are doing, and more dramatically as well, by lighting an ordinary tungsten filament incandescent light bulb twice as brightly as "normal", as I show by several different methods in some of my videos.

What I said is very different from what Gmeast seems to want to believe I said. But he is right about one thing: if he reported 200 percent overunity from a simple switched mosfet circuit... that somehow all the power supply designers and PWM motor controller designers somehow missed over all these years--- I would indeed suspect measurement errors and spend YEARS if necessary tracking them down. Gmeast is doing nothing to attempt to DISPROVE his own results. Measurement error still remains the most likely explanation and until it is RULED OUT by real control experiments carefully performed as I have suggested, the prudent investigator will not come to the conclusion that he has found overunity.

Not only that, when you DID report greater than COP 2 or more OU before.... you were wrong, weren't you. It was a calculation and conceptual error, and you should be grateful to us for insisting and pointing it out, because IF NOT FOR US, you'd still be using the duty cycle twice, and still dividing by THREE instead of FOUR, and thinking you had massive OU when you actually don't.

Don't believe me? Then please, Gmeast, write up your present results and submit them to ANY scientific journal.... any legitimate one that is, not Rossi's fake JNP.... and see what the response is. Note that I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO PUBLICISE YOUR RESULTS, in stark contrast to the accusations from Ainslie who accuses me of wanting to suppress you. PUBLISH !! If you think I am challenging you, wait until you encounter the questions and requirements of a real journal editor.
Come on, you have what you claim is a robust overunity result, repeatable and checkable. So PUBLISH IT, where it can be examined by impartial referees.

I've challenged you to validate your methodology by using it on a known (or presumed) non-OU system like an ordinary PWM controller alone driving the load, or one of my circuits. You don't want to do that, that is up to you. But to accuse me of the things you accuse me of is just wrong. I want you to do things properly and I've given you suggestions as to how to do that. You have not responded to the suggestions by denying their propriety, you have simply refused to validate your methodology. When the errors in your previous methodology were pointed out over and over until you finally got it, you stomped off like a chastened child, and changed your method... which new method resulted in a greatly reduced COP from what you believed you had before. You don't want to examine or test your present methodology because of what is likely to happen YET AGAIN: You will finally see the flaws, you will run and hide and seek another method or finally improve this one, and your COP will drop further, and of course you want to avoid that.

And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:

What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?

What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.

[gmeast]

I think there must be something wrong with Gmeast's reading comprehension.

Gmeast says:
Actually, I said THIS:

What I said is very different from what Gmeast seems to want to believe I said. But he is right about one thing: if he reported 200 percent overunity from a simple switched mosfet circuit... that somehow all the power supply designers and PWM motor controller designers somehow missed over all these years--- I would indeed suspect measurement errors and spend YEARS if necessary tracking them down. Gmeast is doing nothing to attempt to DISPROVE his own results. Measurement error still remains the most likely explanation and until it is RULED OUT by real control experiments carefully performed as I have suggested, the prudent investigator will not come to the conclusion that he has found overunity.

Not only that, when you DID report greater than COP 2 or more OU before.... you were wrong, weren't you. It was a calculation and conceptual error, and you should be grateful to us for insisting and pointing it out, because IF NOT FOR US, you'd still be using the duty cycle twice, and still dividing by THREE instead of FOUR, and thinking you had massive OU when you actually don't.

Don't believe me? Then please, Gmeast, write up your present results and submit them to ANY scientific journal.... any legitimate one that is, not Rossi's fake JNP.... and see what the response is. Note that I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO PUBLICISE YOUR RESULTS, in stark contrast to the accusations from Ainslie who accuses me of wanting to suppress you. PUBLISH !! If you think I am challenging you, wait until you encounter the questions and requirements of a real journal editor.
Come on, you have what you claim is a robust overunity result, repeatable and checkable. So PUBLISH IT, where it can be examined by impartial referees.

I've challenged you to validate your methodology by using it on a known (or presumed) non-OU system like an ordinary PWM controller alone driving the load, or one of my circuits. You don't want to do that, that is up to you. But to accuse me of the things you accuse me of is just wrong. I want you to do things properly and I've given you suggestions as to how to do that. You have not responded to the suggestions by denying their propriety, you have simply refused to validate your methodology. When the errors in your previous methodology were pointed out over and over until you finally got it, you stomped off like a chastened child, and changed your method... which new method resulted in a greatly reduced COP from what you believed you had before. You don't want to examine or test your present methodology because of what is likely to happen YET AGAIN: You will finally see the flaws, you will run and hide and seek another method or finally improve this one, and your COP will drop further, and of course you want to avoid that.

And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:

What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?

What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.

Hi TK and all,


Would you please stop. The COP>2 report I made was long ago and admittedly in error as I have already acceded to your demand to admit I'm a dumb ass.... OK?  Now that's over, I'm carrying on with characterizing my circuit variant.  I have identified several interesting anomalies that  need examining.  The SIMPLE graphing technique I'm employing is far more accurate for this type of work.  There is no interpreting scope readings or hoping that a dumb DVM can correctly average sharp transients.  I'm drawing down a battery, plotting the voltage vs. time of a standard (precision power resistor) AND of the RL & Circuit and plotting THOSE results as well, then following with a fresh calibration of RL vs Differential Temperature at Equilibrium.  The analysis is simply comparing the plots, their slopes and that's it.


Now get off my case.  I don't have the sort of ego that you obviously do.  I don't NEED to "PUBLISH" anything ... not now.  In the meantime, I won't be posting any results here.


On Bryan Little: I have isolated and insulated myself from all of that to the point that I have NOT read a single word on the subject.  I didn't even read what you wrote above.  I don't care about any of that. I almost don't care that YOU have ripped me so many times ... I just don't give a crap! I care ONLY about this technology that I only recently became aware of through the various internet threads about Rosie's circuit.  I simply am not going to give anyone the satisfaction of participating in the character assassination of, from or about ANY camp ... true or false, warranted or not, malicious or otherwise.


GET IT? Regards,


Greg

[WilbyInebriated]

And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:

What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?

What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.

i'd say it wasn't answered because your question is an irrelevant red herring...

do you ever make a post without engaging in at least one logical fallacy?

[gmeast]

i'd say it wasn't answered because your question is an irrelevant red herring...

do you ever make a post without engaging in at least one logical fallacy?

WilbyInebriated,


Thank you. Regards,


Greg

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK and all,


Would you please stop. The COP>2 report I made was long ago and admittedly in error as I have already acceded to your demand to admit I'm a dumb ass.... OK?

Where exactly did I ever demand that you admit that you are a dumb ass? Reference please. What I HAVE asked you for is an actual acknowledgement that you understand the actual errors you made and won't make them in the future. You have not "admitted" that, beyond your acknowledgement that your "instincts" about dividing by three instead of four for a duty cycle of 25 percent was wrong. But you have not acknowledged the more basic error of using the duty cycle twice in your computations, which should have stood out to you like a sore thumb but somehow did not. So I for one am not convinced that you realize this error yet. Meanwhile your insinuation that I want you to admit that you are a dumb ass is a really dumbass thing to say, since I never said anything like that. But if you like, I will start.

Now that's over, I'm carrying on with characterizing my circuit variant.  I have identified several interesting anomalies that  need examining.  The SIMPLE graphing technique I'm employing is far more accurate for this type of work.  There is no interpreting scope readings or hoping that a dumb DVM can correctly average sharp transients.  I'm drawing down a battery, plotting the voltage vs. time of a standard (precision power resistor) AND of the RL & Circuit and plotting THOSE results as well, then following with a fresh calibration of RL vs Differential Temperature at Equilibrium.  The analysis is simply comparing the plots, their slopes and that's it.

The methodology you have chosen is flawed and could easily be improved. You frequently cite precision in your results that is far beyond the capability of your instruments and observations, and you have not validated your methodology by using it on a known, non-OU system to obtain correct results checked by a different methodology. You can believe this or not, but it is coming from someone who has a LOT more experience in these matters than you do.

Now get off my case.  I don't have the sort of ego that you obviously do.  I don't NEED to "PUBLISH" anything ... not now.  In the meantime, I won't be posting any results here.

You are really funny. You post results here, describe what you are doing and then continue to say that you won't. You won't be publishing anything in any real journal and we both know that, and it won't be because you don't NEED to, it will be because you don't have anything of interest to publish, anywhere but on Ainslie's vanity honey-trap blog forum. And my "ego" is of such a sort that I use an alias and keep my own personal identity private.... unlike some others I could mention, who want their actual names associated with their doings.

On Bryan Little: I have isolated and insulated myself from all of that to the point that I have NOT read a single word on the subject.  I didn't even read what you wrote above.  I don't care about any of that. I almost don't care that YOU have ripped me so many times ... I just don't give a crap! I care ONLY about this technology that I only recently became aware of through the various internet threads about Rosie's circuit.  I simply am not going to give anyone the satisfaction of participating in the character assassination of, from or about ANY camp ... true or false, warranted or not, malicious or otherwise.


GET IT? Regards,


Greg

Again, you say you won't at the same time that you do.   
Is my "ripping" of you the moral equivalent of calling someone--- someone Ainslie has incorrectly identified to boot--- a homosexual sociopathic misogynistic criminal psychopath, and accusing him of rifling computers and even instigating physical breakins? Where have I ever "ripped" you by insulting you personally and accusing you of things you haven't done, anyway? Don't you realize that by falsely accusing me of "ripping" you in the same manner as Ainslie does, you are actually engaging in the character assassination that you claim to avoid?

Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that your pet troll Wilby only attacks ME for what he thinks is a logical fallacy, but never bothers to address any of the logical fallacies and ridiculous claims and outright lies from Ainslie.... or you? He never seems to want to correct, for example, your false rephrasing and misrepresentations of what I actually say, nor does he complain about the (nearly empty) Ainslie camp's various claims without support, the conclusions incorrectly drawn from poorly obtained data, nor the egregious libels against people who ARENT EVEN INVOLVED like poor Bryan Little. But he'll snipe at me simply for asking your opinion and pointing out that you aren't answering my questions.

For your information, Gmeast, WilbyInebriated is the very exemplar of an internet troll. Years ago, when I was very much in the same position you are in now with regards to researching Ainslie's circuit and claims.... he deliberately lied to me, and tricked me into giving him a mailing address, by promising to send me a mosfet of the type he wanted me to use in an Ainslie experiment. He offered to send me this mosfet, promised to do so, obtained my mailing address.... then proceeded to mock me and call me a fool-- which I was, for sure, to trust him-- and has since admitted that he NEVER intended to send me anything at all. In short, he ran a game on me, tricked me by LYING TO ME, into revealing confidential information, which he will at some point no doubt try to use in some manner for his own purposes.  Nobody that I have ever encountered in all the years I've been using the Internet has ever done such an egregiously WRONG and tricky deed to me.... but it certainly taught me a lesson, about people in general, the internet in particular, and about WilbyInebriated specifically.

What would YOU, Gmeast, think of someone who engaged you in what seemed to be a rational discussion, got your address and other personal information through a false promise and a lie, and then mocked you for being so trusting and then followed you around for YEARS sniping at you? Well, that's how your hero WilbyInebriated behaves.