Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Your problem with that battery operated switch - TinselKoala - is that REFUSE to use a small rechargeable battery.  If you DID you'd see that there's energy going back to that battery.  Don't give me the 'proof' because the battery discharges - thing.  Of COURSE it'll discharge.  It's used PRECISELY to obviate any advantage in returning energy.  That's part of your SPIN cycle.

Rosie Pose

I'm still having trouble parsing this apparently English paragraph. Let's ignore the lack of a subject in the second phrase of the first sentence and presume she means ME.

First the issue of whether Tar Baby's results are applicable to hers seems settled, since she is telling me how my circuit will behave.

So...if I did use a small rechargeable battery for the gate bias supply I would see energy going back to that battery. OK... that's clear enough and it is TESTABLE BY AINSLIE HERSELF and of course by me.

Next, if I should claim -- or demonstrate -- that the battery discharges, she agrees totally with me OF COURSE it will discharge but denies that I can use this as proof that the battery will discharge.... since that's all I said it would do, isn't it? So this part seems to have some difficulty since it appears to be completely self contradictory. The battery discharging OF COURSE isn't proof that the battery will discharge? And the sun coming up isn't proof that the sun comes up, or what???

Finally, there's the accusation that I am using a non-rechargeable battery deliberately to prevent the free energy from appearing as part of some kind of SPIN. The problem with that is.... I have shown the negative power product, just as Ainslie has shown, in the same way, on digital oscilloscope math traces, and with even stronger evidence than she has shown: a completed negative-going energy integral across the entire screen, and a computed negative total AREA for the instantaneous power curve, both of which confirm strongly the negative mean power measurement. And I've done this using the non-rechargeable battery that Ainslie says will prevent the effect. So... again there seems to be a glaring contradiction in Ainslie's fevered prose.

[TinselKoala]

@PW: Great ! I hope your electrostatic driver works out, I definitely want to see it when you are done.

And just in time for the weekend, too. You should be able to put the Ainslie affair to bed by midnight tonight, I'd guess.

Meanwhile here's a bit better retake of the boring lost trigger scene in the previous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8szx6Fa19s

[fuzzytomcat]

Quotes by Rosemary Ainslie -


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291184/#msg291184   
This is why.  We use a functions generator.  The setting on ALL THOSE GENERATORS are brittle. Either that or something in the experiment factors in.  The settings CHANGE.  For whatever reason - it then it develops SO MUCH ENERGY over the circuit apparatus that EVERYTHING COOKS and we've even had an occasion where the battery caught alight.  THEREFORE IT NEEDS CONSTANT MONITORING.  If it's run continuously - it would need to be monitored DAY AND NIGHT.  I do not have the energy to manage this.  I do not have the funds to pay for this continual monitoring.  BUT I AM ON RECORD.  IF THERE IS ANY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SUCH A RESULT WILL BE CONSIDERED UNEQUIVOCAL - THEN I WILL HAPPILY RUN THIS TO THE EXTENT OF THE BATTERIES' WATT HOUR RATING.  But I'm NOT about to embark on that test UNLESS there's that undertaking.  Because my experience is that NOTHING - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER - is going to cut it.  Unhappily.

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291323/#msg291323   
What the thesis relies on is this.  Every current flow has a distinct CHARGE.  A positive current flow leads with the positive - something like this >-+ -+ -+.  And correspondingly a negative current flow leads with a negative charge - like this <-+ -+ -+.  Now.  Put those two together as they present in real time as in a sine wave.  It would be >-+ -+ -+>then<-+ -+ -+<.  You see for yourself that there's no conflict of like charges. NOW.  Back to our circuit and let's factor in the charge at the gate.  There's an applied current coming from the battery.  It's justification is >-+ -+ -+>  In order for this to find an appropriate charge at the bridge the functions generator would need to APPLY a '-+' because IF that charge was presented '+-' then the two positives '-+ +-' would repel.  But to present that '-+' the functions generator is actually presenting a NEGATIVE charge that simply 'reads' as a positive charge relative to the system.  So.  Now we correctly should see that as a charge coming from the generator <-+ .  It's leading with a NEGATIVE signal.  The battery current sees this applied charge as a PERFECTLY POSITIVE charge alignment to link up and flow to its own source or negative rail. But the DIRECTION of that charge from the FG has reversed.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318699/#msg318699   
That last post of TK's relies on the association of prior claims that were, presumably, not proved.  I have NEVER made any claims about the battery being recharged as a result of that circuit configuration. On the contrary.  We do NOT need that to prove the anomaly of a negative wattage.  Again.  This value is that absurd that it has no meaning at all within any standard paradigms.  However.  I was more than ready to show this to Poynty Point and/or Stefan and/or Professor Steven E Jones.  And right now I'm making sure that we can all evaluate the battery performance in a wholly public demonstration - AS WELL.  Then I, like you, will learn if there is any value at all in that computed 'negative' number.  I simply do not know.  None of us do.  And we'll also be able to test our earlier claim related to COP>17.  And we're more than ready to do this from a 555 signal as from a function generator.  And we intend using both and testing batteries against a control - on both.  That's the first point.

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292115/#msg292115   
THEN.  There is a signal applied by the signal generator to the Gate of Q1.  Its widely referenced as a POSITIVE signal which is possibly erroneous.  But I'll get back to this.  For now - and for this description - it most certainly IS  positive with respect to ((wrt) ) the current that is now ABLE to flow from the anode of the battery to the cathode of the battery - from the plus terminal to the negative terminal.  That's the standard - predictable - respectable - result - precisely in line with what a well behaved circuit should do.  All's good.  The previously OPEN circuit is now CLOSED.  The gate has been bridged.  The current can flow.

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg321217/#msg321217   
I have stated this PUBLICLY - right here on this forum.  WE PUT THE PROBE OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR DIRECTLY ON THE GATE OF Q1.  WE PUT THE TERMINAL OF THAT PROBE DIRECTLY ON THE GATE AT Q2.  When the probe voltage applies a positive voltage at Q1 then the voltage at Q2 is in anti polarity.  There most CERTAINLY is an applied voltage at the gate of Q2.  And Q1.  ALWAYS. They're in anti phase or anti polarity.


FTC

[picowatt]

@PW: Great ! I hope your electrostatic driver works out, I definitely want to see it when you are done.

And just in time for the weekend, too. You should be able to put the Ainslie affair to bed by midnight tonight, I'd guess.

Meanwhile here's a bit better retake of the boring lost trigger scene in the previous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8szx6Fa19s

As if I don't have "real work" to do...

PW

[TinselKoala]

Ok, let's review.

Ainslie has "applied" for the two or three OU prizes: one from this forum, one at OUR, and Prof. Jones's prize. She has at various times claimed COP > INFINITY, COP INFINITY, COP = INFINITY, and COP Exceeds INFINITY for the NERD circuit presented (in two distinctly different schematics) in the two "papers" that we all know about.
She made those claims based on measurements of "negative mean power" which she believes were obtained using "standard protocols".
And she has claimed that the circuit produces high heat in a resistive load, for hours at a time, even boiling water, without any power being supplied by the main batteries,  OR whatever is powering the +/- signals like a FG or bias supply. As part of this she has claimed that the batteries are prevented from discharging, or are being recharged, or are simply not involved somehow with running the circuit, powering the oscillations, and heating the load.
She admits, however, that the battery capacity has NEVER been tested and she doesn't know what the outcome would be. Even though she's been telling us what she GUARANTEES the outcome will be.

And now.... in the past 24 hours.... she has backed down seemingly totally. She now says that she makes ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS as to the circuit's performance and that she has no idea... nobody does.... about whether the batteries have stayed charged up or not. All she now appears to be "claiming" is that she can produce the negative power readings on demand.

So what? So can anyone. All that it is evidence of is improper incorrect measurement protocols coupled with a lack of critical analysis. And this is what the reviewers of the submitted drafts perceived immediately.

.99 has acknowledged that Ainslie has withdrawn her claim to the OUR prize, as is proper, since nothing seems to be claimed, only a conjecture is made that even the claimant doesn't know the truth of.

Presumably the claims for this forum's prize and that of Prof. Jones will soon also be renounced, as is proper, since NOTHING is claimed regarding the NERD circuit by Ainslie. She's only making claims -- easily refuted ones -- about function generators and current flows now. So where's the beef? Those claims are not more crackpot than many others on this forum, and they certainly don't pose a threat to Big Oil or the MiBs.