another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Added to which he has not been able to correctly identify the displays on a sadly over exposed and incorrectly tabulated screen shot - in the hopes that you may all confuse him with some kind of consultative authority.  In one rather amusing example of this he presents the Tektronix as if it's the LeCroy and carefully edits out the boundaries of the instrument that you may confuse it with the LeCroy.  Trust me on this.  It's yet another shot of the Tektronix.

The two Tek screenshots that I have posted from the video and IDENTIFIED AS SUCH, and the one LeCroy shot posted, identified as such. Where has any "editing" or hiding of detail happened? Where is the corresponding explanation from AINSLIE about these salient points?
NOWHERE, that's where.

TRUST YOU on this? When it is plain and evident to anyone with eyeballs that you are LYING again?

(Note that at the very upper left corner of both the TEK shots, one can make out the blue "Tek" word. And in the LeCroy shot, in the bottom left corner one can see the words "LeCroy". Not very clever editing for someone who wanted to hide things, is it. Once again, Ainslie is DEMONSTRATED to be a liar.)

[TinselKoala]

And as to the claims of RA about my "debunking" and my own "claims"....

TinselKoala said,

Meanwhile, work continues, as I explain and demonstrate more features of the Tar Baby. Now, this is not a replication of the Ainslie NERD RAT device, is it. Even though it uses the same circuit diagram, the same component types and values, and makes the same oscillation and load heating (allowing for its lesser power, of course).... Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT device. You see, it's not on a white pegboard, so that disqualifies it totally.

Nevertheless, it performs exactly as that other device does, for some reason, and the various tests and demonstrations that I have shown here could just as well have been performed on that device..... and perhaps THEY SHOULD BE so performed, especially the drawdown test that I have illustrated, or the more complex ones that others have mentioned. But certainly.... if anyone is talking about claiming a prize, a monetary prize, their claims should be tested in a manner that would indeed hold up in a court of law.

My only claim about Tar Baby is that it performs just like the NERD RAT device in all significant respects. If they are allowed to analyze their data in the way that they have shown..... then so am I, and when that's done, Tar Baby is just as "overunity" as their device.  If I am required to perform a battery draw down test... then so are they.

Wait... I've already done that. Where is the NERD RAT test?

WHAT IS STOPPING ROSEMARY AINSLIE FROM PERFORMING AND SHOWING HER TESTS?

Certainly not I. The only one preventing Rosemary from performing and illustrating any test she likes is.... ROSEMARY HERSELF.

(And I'm not holding my breath waiting for Wilby's "replication" or testing of Ainslie's little farce, or even any refutation of the points I've made... because I know he won't be showing one... all he can do is be critical of the work of others, he cannot do any of his own. And amazingly, my JT video of my own work, not mirrored anywhere, has garnered over 180,000 views ( and less than 100,000 of those are from me looking.... ha ha). Too bad I'm not grubbing money through advertising... or I might be able to buy that Buick Rosemary is always talking about.)

[TinselKoala]

Over and over in my videos anyone can see and hear: I say "the F-43 is set to produce a negative-going pulse only..." and I show the knob setting, then I go to the scope and show its zero baseline, its timebase and vertical amp settings, and show the negative going squarewave pulse on the gate drive. Or, if I am using some other pulse like a POSITIVE OFFSET as she has done, I illustrate that and wiggle knobs so ANYONE who knows how to read an oscilloscope can see what I'm doing.

You are putting yourself in an untenable position with your lies, Rosemary, because MY results are repeatable by anyone with a scope, a signal generator, and a handful of metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors. I show enough detail in my demonstrations that ANYONE with the kit can duplicate what I show in a matter of minutes, without any "mistaken diagrams" or uninterpretable scope shots. Well-lit or not, steadycam or not, the detail is there and it's in the form of RAW, LIVE data that anyone can reproduce for themselves, not static scopeshots without explanation and bogus math. (Your "math trace" doesn't even account for the 0.25 Ohm CVR !!)

You are the one pleading for open-source replication and "confirmation" of your claims. Yet, EVERYONE who has ever worked with your circuit has eventually come to the same conclusion. You have NO supporters among anyone who has actually built and tested your device for themselves. Not Glen, not Harvey, not Ashtweth, not Aaron, nobody, not a single one. And you've turned on them and attacked them and their work just as you have attacked me. You won't show the simplest tests, you won't answer questions, you won't support your claims with references and reproducible data. Not even Donovan Martin will surface in your support.

The only way that you can even try to redeem yourself is to SHOW YOUR BATTERY DRAWDOWN TESTS. Nobody is hindering you or trying to suppress you in the least. JUST DO IT. What are you so afraid of? The truth is like soap: it only hurts if you are totally unused to it.

[powercat]

I have every intention of doing a battery draw down test.  I do not know whether I'll be able to conduct that test through this forum.  That's in Harti's hands.  And it's heavily dependent on certain editorial requirements related to this thread - and, indeed, to another thread here on this forum.

Rosie Posie

What is going on here, I thought we were going to see some new tests,Instead of the usual arguments that Rosemary seems to love having.
At least TK has done new tests and displayed his results for all to see.
Now it would appear from Rosemary's response that she is yet again moving the goalposts before she undertakes any new test.

Stefan can you clarify the situation on the tests that everyone is expecting from Rosemary,
or are we just going to continually have Rosemary attacking everyone and treating this forum like her blog

Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.

[WilbyInebriated]

but that is exactly why you are doing all this verbiage, to avoid TESTING.

LOLLING all over the floor!  how many times have you posted on this page alone? 6 already. in point of fact your obsession with rosemary is the reason for all this "verbiage". and the "verbiage" is mostly yours. the record demonstrates this fact. from rose's response to hartiberlin (#1593) about the thread being reopened to her next post (reply #1610) there were 16 SIXTEEN posts by you, fuzzy, milehigh, ebag and powercat. 8 EIGHT of those were yours... 

Are you here accusing me of fakery?

i am... and i am sure others are thinking it too tinselkoala/alsetalokin.

Everything you say is a lie, Rosemary.

you are a liar tinselkoala/alsetalokin.

everything she says is a lie? EVERYTHING? well then do what you claimed you can do. support what you say (and you say EVERYTHING rosemary says is a lie) with facts, references, and WITNESSES.