Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Oh, the joys of refutation.

I've done all these before... but here we go again.

CVR vs. CSR:  Bing returns five million hits for "current sensing resistor" and nine million hits for "current viewing resistor". One again, the resistor senses nothing. It allows one to VIEW the current by taking the voltage drop SENSED across the resistor by a scope or meter. Ainslie's objection to my using CVR in preference to CSR is as ridiculous as her calling a stack of four power resistors a "shunt". She's never seen a shunt and wouldn't know one if she woke up lying next to it. Ainslie exhibits her ignorance for the world to see and scoff at.

MOSFET vs mosfet:  I laugh and laugh at this one. Does a MOSFET perform differently than a mosfet?  Is there someone somewhere who does not know what I'm saying when I refer to a mosfet, but would understand perfectly if I talked instead about MOSFETs? Yes.... Rosemary Ainslie.

Misrepresenting her own work: Lulz. Time after time again she does it. but this case is particularly egregious. Here's how she's reported it recently:

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

And here's how it was reported in real time, on the afternoon it was actually performed:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html
and post 118 immediately following. Compare, contrast.... this is the SAME EVENT that is being described in both places.

Ainslie misrepresents her own work:
Just a day or so ago she said that she NEVER has blown a mosfet.

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279934/#msg279934

Ainslie is willfully and woefully ignorant of her topic:

In any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

Ainslie is ignorant, arrogant, overweening and insulting :

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Ainslie is ignorant, arrogant, overweening and insulting:

Quote from: picowatt on April 25, 2012, 12:03:05 AM

   

PW says:  "...will be dissipated in the 50R and to a lesser degree in the left side body diode and in the right side drain to source resistance. "

Right side drain?  Source resistance?  What are you talking about?  If you mean the drain or source legs of Q1 or Q2 then say it.  If you are referring to the drain or source rail of the battery then say it.  This entire phrase is entirely undefined.  It is the simple 'rule' of science that terms must be defined and clearly expressed.  Anything less and we're NOT talking science. 

Ainslie lies about and misrepresents the work of others, hallucinating things that were never said, seeing things that aren't there:

Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?
The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.

Every single statement made in that paragraph is untrue.
1. the video has not been removed
2. the link has not been changed and neither has the video
3. I don't and cannot monitor across the load because I don't have differential voltage probes.
4. I said no such thing in the video.
5. I was indeed monitoring the Current Viewing Resistor.
6. I did not "relate" it to the "voltage across the transistor".
7. I never identified the "shunt" as the "load" anywhere in that video or anywhere else.
8. I have, as I have said before, NOT shown voltages taken across the load.
9. And I have never complained that Ainslie doesn't "take voltages across the load." I have suggested that they monitor the information-rich mosfet COMMON DRAINS, but other than in the demo video and some early scopeshots, she refuses to do so. Perhaps because this signal reveals too much.

In fact, as Ainslie found out when she nearly exploded her batteries by improper hookups, YOU CANNOT measure across the load while you are also measuring the other parameters because the REFERENCES ARE AT DIFFERENT POTENTIALS and if you try it... you will short-circuit the battery through the scope's probe grounds. Unless of course you have differential voltage probes (Ainslie does not) or you use a fully isolated scope like the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter.

There is more, so much more. I can prove every contention I've ever made about Ainslie, except calling her a high school dropout. She never attended a real high school so there was no need for her to drop out... she was already gone. Certainly she has never taken so much as a freshman algebra class.

But I'm tired of all this. It's not even sporting, when Ainslie gives me all the material I need to refute her totally, right in her very own posts and data.

Do your tests, Ainslie, and stop with your lying rants already. They are getting very old, especially when you repost the same post over and over like a textbook case of a disgruntled spammer.

Or publish that "transcript" of all my videos that you promised to do. Where is it? Did you lose interest? Did you check with your academics, perhaps, who sought to dissuade you from your vindictive and meaningless little mendacity?  Or is the lighting just toooo baaaad for your senile old eyeballs? I dunno... but I do know that you PROMISED something that you are never going to deliver... YET AGAIN.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, and yet MORE evidence of 'rampant' sociopathy...

Yes, because you parrot back words you do not understand at all, and you squawk holy hell when your tail feathers are pulled.

and the kind of 'exchange' that would be more appropriate to a kindergarden.

Is my name really Leon? Is it, Polly?

And as for this?  He signs himself Leon.  I address him as Leon.  And for some reason this is WRONG?  No explanation as to why.  For ONCE I think he's disclosed something of his identity.  And this too was some sort of ELABORATE ruse? 

Are you a scrawny wench? Am I a shorter version of Hitler?

LOL.  And I have merely referred to his 'self confessed' need to apply the kind of abuse he seems to think is also applied to a 'dog'.  I would say that one would require the mind set of someone like Hitler to ever assume that was appropriate.  That Hitler is also 'short' is the unfortunate consequence of the 'short man syndrome' which invariably looks to exaggerate a personal sense of effectiveness.  Usually by dehumanising everyone he can.  It's a well known pathology. 

When YOU START OFF calling people funny names.... you really shouldn't protest too much when they do it back, Polly Parrot.

And I have NEVER called him 'funny names'.  God forbid.  I would hope that on this thread I have complied to forum guidelines.  There is NEVER an excuse for the barrage of abuse that TK et al - apply.  It is patently CRIMINAL in its excess and its reach.  And for some reason it's not only permitted - it's ENCOURAGED?

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear MileHigh

I have told you several times this is all hot air for nothing.  There are no catastrophic errors and when you say things like this you are making a spectacle of yourself.

When one tries to represent the product of a small sample of current flow and applied voltage, in a switched cycle - as fair 'representative' unit of applied power - then it is - at BEST - CATASTROPHICALLY wrong.  It couldn't be more so.  And then add to that his attempt to convince Magsy that his wattage analysis is CORRECT?  And he STILL persists in this?  And you think it's NOT catastrophic?  And for me to point this out makes me a 'spectacle'?  That's rather odd.  If I thereby make myself a 'spectacle' as you put it then so be it.  There's at least then the outside hope that Magsy will check this out for himself before he 'believes' TK and then applies those non-standard protocols to his own analyses - in the future.

Sorry Rosie but you can't have it both ways.  You are already involved in a dialogue and you can't pretend that you are not going to address this issue because that would be 'endorsing' the dialogue.

Actually MileHigh I do NOT engage.  I am simply using as much as I can of TK's posts to remind our readers of his spin.  All that propagandising.  TK serves us well - in that he is the quintessential example of the reason that everyone's research into alternate energy on these forums - gets nowhere.  He's the 'snuffer' of any earnest attempts to advance anything at all.  I'm probably not that effective in countering his agenda.  But while I'm here - then he gets increasingly excessive in his applications of 'abuse' - and that, as we've discussed before - is INVALUABLE in showing up his agenda.

You are talking 'impedance' so you need to explain to us exactly what you mean and cite an example with calculations if you can.  If not, we will all be tempted to think that you are bluffing.

WHY would I be bluffing?  I assure you that it is well known that higher frequencies grossly alter the resistance of inductive components.  It is taught EVERYWHERE.  Why should I lie about this?  Just go check your own text books.  And I'm sure that it's well referenced in WIKI.  I will not offer my own explanation.  I was goaded to do so and did with regard to that average wattage.  And again.  LOOK where it got me.  Still RAMPANT denial.  It's a waste of time.  Quite apart from which it endorses an UTTERLY criminal level of engagement.  I refuse to co-operate with TK until he shows he can act like a professional.  As it is he is indulging in CRIMINAL abuses.

Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

To respond to the issue of who's on the payroll of Free Energy Strike Force Five...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmgaTPz63Bw

As ever MilesUpThere - EXCELLENT video.  I think it's to do with the story of the farm worker who was skiving off work.  The farmer goes to the chicken coop - calls out the worker's name to be told that 'there ain't no-one here but us chickens'.  Something like that.  Hugely amusing.

Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for THIS contribution...

And guys... Just take a LONG HARD LOOK at this number...An INFANTILE exercise in 'name calling' and a slanderous allegation of lying.  Amusingly 'direct' and 'unrestrained' but the amusement somewhat tempered by the rather clumsy OBVIOUS - disrespect.  It's on a par a kindergarden standard of dialogue.  Possibly not even that much.  Yet no attempt at moderation. Clear evidence of malice and a flaunted refusal to co-operate on a professional level.  Intended somehow to make anyone at all think that she's clever.  Sadly.  At best it's just SO inappropriate it's actually hugely amusing.  And would require moderation - at least.This is RIDICULOUS.  IF he didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention.  Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing her abusive level of dialogue with them.  Not only that but I would, again, be subjected to another 5 pages of PROTEST - as was evident when they weakened and EXPLAINED why it was that the duty cycle needed to be incorporated into the analysis of WATTAGE.  We all know where that one went.  Still not addressed.  And STILL Rosemary is trying to argue that she was correct. And this is simply a 'doozy'.  They were, after all, the ones who needed to point out HER rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power.  And NOW?  She claims that everyone is suffering form 'abysmal ignorance'?  And this is meant to be taken seriously?  The tactics are SO obvious that it's actually intellectually INSULTING.  It's factually slanderous.  It's tactically transparent.  And it's criminally abusive.  AGAIN.  No effort to moderate.  Apparently Harti sees no need. And as for this?  What a load of nonsense.  I'm years old.  I have, myself, attended a college.  WHY would I not know that there are MANY people who have MULTIPLE degrees - in many unrelated fields.  What's new?  I haven't even commented on this.  I only commented on Rosemary's claim to have a proper education in electronics.  In SCIENCE to boot.  Why then does she NOT know that you cannot take an unrepresentative sample from a small part of a duty cycle - and CLAIM that it in any way can be represented as a reliable measure of watts. It STILL hasn't been answered.  And why, if she is, as she claims, a 'professional' - does she act as a criminal?  The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Not only is this post a FRAUDULENT misrepresentation of my work it is also another example of plagiarism.  Which DIAMETRICALLY opposes the declared 'rules of engagement' on this forum and any forum anywhere.   CRIMINAL in not one but two categories.  And STILL this kind of post is permitted.  With no applied moderation? 

His own level of communication is actually BEST illustrated in those further scheduled points which are ENTIRELY incomprehensible.

Regards,
Rosemary