Testing the TK Tar Baby

[orbut 3000]

Who declared math obsolete? 

It is an analogy. You implied that your experimental results defy CoE but you reject criticism. You deleted comments on your experiment that raised valid questions. Instead of triple-checking and peer reviewing your results, you chose to enjoy Ainslie stroking your ego.


This may sound like an insult, but it is a honest opinion and an invitation to participate in an open and truthful discourse with the regular posters in this thread, something Ainslie can't offer. Read this thread from beginning to end, if you don't believe it.

[TinselKoala]

@gmeast:

Well, there, that was a reasonable and considered response on your part, thank you for that.

Yes, I am most concerned about Ainslie's claims, and I'm happy to let you off the hook on those, even though I think you should write up and post the complete story of how you got started: the initial examination of the NERD circuit and your rejection of it as unworkable, but your consideration of the Quantum circuit as something you might try; your initial response at finding that the 555 timer "didn't work", and what you actually found that it did do and how the circuit behaved;  the story of the recirculation diode that was or was not supposed to be in the circuit but definitely was not in the Quantum schematic, the results of testing the circuit with your own clock and finding the results of the application of the duty cycles claimed by Ainslie in the article .... and the reasons why you branched out of the more exact replication of Ainslie's Quantum circuit and claims, and went on to your completely different mosfet switching circuit. This story deserves to be told; it is important and you worked hard on it. It would not be intellectually honest for you to not report your attempts to replicate the Quantum claims.

The issue of your mistakes comes up because just saying "I made a mistake, I won't do it again" doesn't reassure us that you actually understand. If you only would say "yes, I see and understand .99's and TK's analysis of the problem and I see that I applied the duty cycle twice, here and here, and now I understand that the problem has to be worked like this and so, and this here is the result I get when I do it correctly, and I retract my earlier conclusion of COP 4" .... that would put the matter entirely to rest, and would have done so at the very beginning. But that's not how you approached the matter.

You are indeed right to distance yourself from Ainslie. It's difficult to see how you can do that though, since your "home forum" appears to be her honeytrap, and you are in back-channel communication with her, that isn't public, unless I miss my guess. There is no way that you should fear any treatment like Ainslie gets.... unless you start fabricating data, lying about your claims, insulting people over and over who are only trying to help you, censoring threads (oops... be careful), seeking monetary awards based on false claims, redefining common words to suit your changing purposes, and making crazy and fundamental errors like "One Joule is One Watt Per Second" and clinging to them in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary..... if you do those kinds of things... you might need to fear somebody calling you on them.

However if you continue to engage in reasonable discussion, avoid the egregious insult, do your work honestly and report positive as well as negative results..... take instruction where you are ignorant, share your own specialized knowledge.... what have you to fear from anyone?

And as far as "treatment being hurled her way"..... again, you haven't done your homework, I think. Read the pages in the locked thread before and after I came into this project, and you will see just how insulting and dismissive of others she really is, and you will begin to see the source of some of my ire. She can sure dish it out... but she cannot take it without whining and escalating and getting _really really_ nasty.  Treatment hurled her way? Just read her "doggeral" (sic) thread for some hurling treatments. Ainslie is the Red Queen of the insult, the smarmy snide comment, the disrespect of others, the misquote, the bogus attribution. See for yourself, look up the old thread and read it. It's a real hoot, especially now that you know the story of the "demo video" and its various claimed schematics.

Now... as to the issue of whether or not your results "refute" me or not.... I don't think they do, and here's why. In the first place I have criticised your experimental methodology and the suitability of the apparatus you are using to make the kinds of determinations you are attempting. Secondly, because of the similarity of your basic concept to the long-discredited and soundly disproven antics of YouKnowWho.... you must expect to be tarred by the same brush, at least initially, and your work to receive extra intense scrutiny.... especially considering where and how you choose to release your results. The fact that you made those early errors, and clung to them so vehemently, didn't help your cause in this regard, either.
So at this point we have your reported results, that indicate to you a slight degree of overunity performance. That's great, it gives you a solid target; many researchers are not nearly as fortunate as that. But these results are simply not "believable"... not in the sense that they could be fabricated; I saw your raw data notebook photo and I can't tell you how important that was and how much I respect you for showing it. But unbelievable in the sense that they go against the textbooks, if you want to put it that way, and as such, require very stringent proofs. And your work, as reported, is tantalizing and fascinating but sadly does not rise to the necessary standard of rigor and stringency. It is, however, a great starting point, as I have said. Now you should actively seek outside help, confirmation or disconfirmation as the case may be from other researchers _using different methods for data gathering_  as well as the same ones you are using. When these different methods agree, in different laboratories, then you have gone one more small step towards "refuting" me and all the textbooks too. When you've gotten a paper published, that's another small step. When the paper survives the incredibly intense attacks it will get from the entire scientific community who reads it in a peer reviewed journal.... then _perhaps_ it's time to start rewriting the textbooks, or at least adding some footnotes.

Get it, gmeast? Nobody is interested in attacking you, because you haven't done anything to be attacked for, and you aren't hurting anyone but yourself, and as long as you are having fun or keeping interested, that's OK with me. But when you insult me and .99 and MH and PW and others for trying to help you, and when you act as pigheaded as Ainslie does... my perfect Zen composure will break down and I'll give back what I think I'm getting. And when you make extraordinary claims of performance.... I expect you to be able to back up your claims with solid, repeatable, publicly available evidence. With the math checked already!!
There is certainly no law that requires this... or certain people would be in a lot of trouble... but it's the decent and proper thing to do, and I hope we can agree on that much at least.

Why don't you open a thread here, or over on Energetic Forum or even on .99's forum to inform others and discuss your work? I'm sure there will be a lot of interest, some overboard enthusiastic and some deadly skeptical. But as long as your technique is good and your reports are honest, what have you to fear from skeptics? You should be able to meet any and all objections with reasoned responses, outside references for your assertions, and data which support your claims. If you can't.... then maybe your skeptics have a point and you should pay attention. Ainslie is in the latter category, very much so, but she doesn't have the proper attitude to proceed; she rejects proper analysis and expert advice, and clings to her faulty conclusions. She is stuck solid trying to prove her "thesis" but cannot even muster experimental evidence that supports her basic claims. You aren't like that, I believe. I hope you don't prove me wrong on that point!!

[orbut 3000]

I have a screenshot this time.

[The Boss]

 
I am not a bastard, and turning it off won't help.

[TinselKoala]

Hah....!!

What do you think of THAT, gmeast? Are you sure that you are in the right place?


Myself, I'm laughing so hard I'm about to.... "hurl".......





kiss kiss, babydoll........ Ainslie's "magnetic field model" has no connection whatsoever with reality, makes no quantitative predictions, contradicts itself, expresses a profound ignorance of ordinary physics, can't explain present experimental findings, cannot even explain correctly already understood phenomena, and makes all kinds of conclusions and claims for which there is no support whatsoever. It's a word salad, well past its sell-by date and rapidly wilting into slime. Yet she pretends it supersedes quantum electrodynamics and that she is more brilliant than Richard Feynman.... having learned her physics from "The Dancing WuLi Masters", after all. She thinks magnetic field lines are real!! Well, sure they are, just as real as the lines of latitude and longitude that keep the Earth from flying apart due to centrifugal force.