Testing the TK Tar Baby

[poynt99]

I very nearly missed this post.  Poynty - I'm ONLY discussing this on my forum.  You're forcing me back into this disgusting territory to discuss what would otherwise be of interest to a great number of viewers.

if you choose NOT to answer me there - then answer me by email- I'll post your reply.

Regards
Rosie

Rosemary,

I've registered at your forum, but not yet received confirmation, therefore I can't post there. So I will post here in the mean time.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

I've registered at your forum, but not yet received confirmation, therefore I can't post there. So I will post here in the mean time.

Poynty - I was told that you may need to check your spam.  If there's no email there get back to me.  We'll sort something out.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[picowatt]

@All,

I have no idea why she is so hostile towards me.  I have never slandered her as she claims and my posts are way more respectful to her than her's are to me.  I can only assume that facts and truths relating to the operation of her circuit, function generators, and 'scopes truly annoy her.  Possibly she is just annoyed because she has not been able to goad me into resorting to the gutter talk that most of her threads devolve into.  I don't know why...  and I don't really care.  I came here to discuss the electronics involved and understand the neg mean pwr measurement.  As for the recent topic of this thread, just think of the possible irony if she were to "out" the wrong person.  Enough said.  So please, everyone chill and let's move on.

I do believe that her feet should be "held to the fire", as they say, over the Q1 issue.  I brought this to her attention month's ago, and I believe .99 mentioned at that time that he had brought this up before that.  Her argument was, and apparently still is, that we are reading the 'scope incorrectly.  .99 annotated a 'scope shot and emailed it to her so that she could confirm with her experts that we were reading the 'scope correctly.  Later, she stated she would ask her 'scope calibration guy about it when he performed an upcoming calibration.  Apparently she has not followed thru with any of these scenarios. 

Instead, she has now started a new forum and posted her papers with no mention or correction of the Q1 issue.  In fact, the COP=17 article has also been posted there, even though there was much discussion in the past regarding the duty cycle being incorrect as it relates to that paper's schematic and discussion.  I have not personally verified the duty cycle issue, but there is plenty of forum reading available wherein replicator's found the duty cycle to be inverted.  I believe it was TK that first discovered this, but apparently other replicator's also verified this issue.

Instead of demonstrating a modicum of integrity and addressing these issues, she has chosen to shake the etch-a-sketch, hit the reset button, and move on.  If it is believed that the 'scope captures are being read incorrectly, this is very easy to confirm.  Just as I did by contacting LeCroy and asking them if I was reading the 'scope correctly, she has had plenty of time to do this as well. 

The facts are that the 'scope capture in FIG3 of the first paper (not the COP=17 article) demonstrates that during the portion of the FG duty cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx. +12volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on.  During this same portion of the FG cycle, however, the CSR trace does not depict the current flow one would expect to see when Q1 is turned on.  Possibly Q1 was damaged during these tests, although it is fairly rare for a MOSFET to fail open circuit.  Possibly, in the confusion of paralleling MOSFET's, Q1's gate and source lead were reversed, placing all five MOSFET's in parallel and in the common gate configuration.  Possibly Q1 was overheating, and as it was believed at that time to be in parallel with the other four MOSFET's, Q1 was innocently disconnected and the four Q2 MOSFETs only used during these tests.  Possibly a clip lead or connection to Q1 became loose and disconnected.  We cannot know what happened to Q1 at that time, but we do know that the 'scope captures indicate that Q1 was not connected, at the time of the related captures, as is indicated by the first paper's schematic.

As well, Fig 7 in the first paper also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again, the CSR trace depicts that Q1 is not turning on.

What material effect this has on her claims of overunity cannot be known without further tests comparing results with Q1 in and out of circuit.  Just as she believes it was serendipitous that the four Q2 MOSFET's were paralleled incorrectly and inadvertantly connected in the common gate configuration, possibly removing Q1 from the circuit will prove as well to be serendipitous.

In any event, I believe most would agree that this issue should be dealt with and not merely swept under the rug.

PW





     






 

[TinselKoala]

That's right, HG....er, sorry, Picowatt.

The errors and questionable data in the draft manuscripts would of course cause them to be rejected out of hand by competent scientific editors--- as they have been several times already, in various forms. The "publication" on Rossi's vanity "Journal" site is a joke. This is the site Rossi started in order to "publish" his own papers after they were actually rejected by.... arXiv !!!  Certainly the points that picowatt has pointed out call for a repetition of the entire set of experiments before any REAL publication could be considered-- or before any credence at all should be given to the report.

And this present story about a secret "well funded laboratory of experts" in the USA that she is sending off her apparatus to.... is also a joke. I'm all for it, by the way. I've always called for independent testing of the NERD device. Of course, what we expected was for this testing to occur publicly, with questions asked and answered, and hypotheses under test stated beforehand, and all the rest of what normally happens in the scientific world.

There are several outcomes that can be imagined, some more probable than others.

I just want to know one thing: Is she sending along the white pegboard?

[TinselKoala]

Either way.  You're best efforts at all this misinformation - ARE ABOUT TO GO UP IN SMOKE.  LOL

Rosie Pose

There's no misinformation here, Grammar Queen Ainslie, except that which you are promulgating. EVERYTHING I SAY can be independently checked and verified. What you say.... changes from one version to another, and mostly consists of your fantasies and lies.

I am totally and completely in favor of having your device tested INDEPENDENTLY by "boffins" although I would prefer a gang of EE graduate students at someplace like the University of Texas at Austin..... but I don't believe that will happen.

We shall see what goes up in smoke and what does not. My prediction is that there will NOT be independent testing performed, because I simply do not believe that you, Ainslie, would allow it to happen, nor would you report the results honestly and fully if it did happen.

You have claimed, for example, that other laboratories have "validated" your earlier claims but you have NEVER produced the slightest shred of evidence, and the people's names that you drop seem never to have heard of you or contradict your interpretation of what they tested and reported.

You've had plenty of opportunities for independent testing, always refused. Suddenly, now, on the eve of when you are supposed to be doing definitive tests of your own, you are instead shipping off your entire perfectly ordinary apparatus... using ordinary mosfets, ordinary clipleads, and an ordinary RV water heater element.... half way around the world for "independent testing". When it would take  this laboratory only a day or two to obtain all the parts, on their own, from commercial suppliers on the same continent.

I eagerly await the next chapter in your comedic farce, Ainslie.

Will the apparatus be lost at sea? Hijacked by the Men In Black, who work for the evil TinselKoala worldwide, suppressing Free Energy Technology wherever it seeks to arise? Will the independent laboratory, in the secret undisclosed location somewhere in America, suddenly vanish completely in a puff of zipons when they finally hit on the right duty cycle? Or will they report negatively, having been suborned by TK's minions into falsifying their public report, while privately confirming her claims, like Eddie Tarnow of CSIR is supposed to have done?

Or will they discover that their batteries never run down as well, and begin doing real scientific work to find out how and why this effect happens (with only Ainslie's own apparatus, apparently)?
   
Stay tuned.... maybe we'll find out.