Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for this slew of misrepresentations.

Of course you can see that what she says in her reply to you is mostly garbage. Especially the part about "integration". The "integrations" that she has shown on the scope traces are incorrectly performed (not incorporating shunt value, not integrating the correct waveforms, not integrating over a suitable sampling interval, not accounting for probe skew, etc) and her values come from the data dumps to spreadsheet analysis, NOT live integration of proper waveforms to determine energy flows. Anyone who is familiar with the use of oscilloscopes for power measurements can confirm this, and the information that supports me is easily available from the scope manufacturers and others.

When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence.  We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration.  It's not difficult.  Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this.  The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples.  You can't.  You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope.  And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT?  HOW ODD?

The "power dissipation" claims she makes are also false. There is indeed more than one way to measure power dissipated, she does not use "standard protocols" at all, and so on. But of course you know this too.

We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests.  Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.

Her ignorance regarding the use of the Clarke-Hess sampling integrating power meter -- an "industry standard" instrument being used exactly as designed -- is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on a real limitation (the manufacturer's cited bandwidth of accuracy) she gets muddled about how it's connected in the circuit...even though it is connected exactly as an oscilloscope (with its own CVR) is connected. In other words, she again betrays her monumental wilful ignorance of proper standard power testing protocols, while at the same time proclaiming that she knows more than anyone else about it.

I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations.  I've referenced it here.

I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this..

I can easily accept that the readings of the CH may be off by a few percent due to the bandwidth accuracy limitation. However, it is being used correctly and it's monitoring the same circuit "input" point as the NERDs monitor, and in addition it also monitors something they did not: the power _delivered_ to the load. Stated another way, it is monitoring the power drawn by the load, or yet another way.... the power that must be dissipated in the load. The CH's accuracy in this regard has been rigorously tested USING A CALORIMETER-- a real one -- and the CH's readings of power dissipation by the load agree with calorimetric measurements. Call the bandwidth into question: OK, that is a real issue, an empirical one, and can be addressed by calibration against standards. Call the hookups and the basic methodology and basic accuracy into question -- that's just ignorant whining and is without merit.

Rigorous calibrations?  Really?  And then it's out by a small percentage?  PLEASE?  And let me re-iterate TK.  Here....

I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this..

It's all SPIN.  Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim.  And even now you have NOT addressed our claim.  Only something that you infer may be related to our claim.  LOL.  And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now TK - I've taken the trouble to plow through the last two pages answering your questions.  Have the courtesy to answer mine.  Here it is again.

Hello TK,

Nice to see you around.  I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to address this post.  Then I'll move on to the other three video references.  Because I KNOW how badly you want to keep your thread topical.

Rosie Pose

Your first video referenced 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
.  Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
.  It's really easily managed.  Yet you didn't see some need for this?
.  Or is that display there?  In the right hand corner at the top?
.  Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
.  But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
.  ALWAYS
.  And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
.  When this would have got to the heart of the matter
.  so easily?
.  And that trick with the ground?
.  And all that INSINUATION?
.  Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
.  Therefore the circuit is only finally open
.  Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
.  When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
.  Shouldn't you have explained this?
.  Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
.  I'd have thought?

If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'?  Surely not?  I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics.  It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit.  It's not your style.  I see that now.

Regards TK
Rosie Pose

By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine.  Is that a warehouse?  Full of equipment?  Did you officially register your loan of it?  For that little video of yours?  I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.   

ADDED[/glow

[fuzzytomcat]

Then use a separate battery.  And monitor it's voltage to determine the output.  That's simple.
Our impedance was determined by measurements made by 'EXPERTS' on excellent and calibrated machines from well respected laboratories.  And whether their inductance values are greater or less - will not make an ounce of difference to the negative value of the current flow determined from the voltage across those shunts.  And it is that negative current flow that predominates each cycle that is of interest and is the entire substance of the claim.
We do NOT claim COP> INFINITY.  We MEASURE COP Infinity.  That's NOT the same thing.  We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source.  Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY.  What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source.  THEN - there would be no further EVIDENCE of COP Infinity. But then we do not know how to measure the energy.  Any more.  Because those new protocols need to be forged by EXPERTS TK.  Not by you.  As it is you can't even get your head around this distinction.  And to this end we have written that paper.
IF there is an alternate supply of energy that has, heretofore, NOT been factored into power analysis - then the EVIDENCE would be that we would have exceeded unity.  The prize is offered for over unity.  Therefore we would most certainly qualify for any over unity prize.  Whether or not we demand that prize is immaterial.  It's our qualification for that prize that's at issue.  Because when the 'new energy source' is accepted - then too the there will be no further resistance to the possibility.  It will become widely accepted and widely applied.  And THAT's our real prize.  Nothing else.

/...

continued/...Nor will I.  Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable.  And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you.  You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members.  I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'.  And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim.  Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.
You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors.  I DENY THIS.  You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim.  It is IRRELEVANT to our claim.  What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim.  In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim.  Let me remind you.  Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  That is the point of our claim.  Again.  Has this sunk in yet? 
IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory.  And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim.  Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT.  You have only ATTEMPTED THIS.  And failed. 

/...

continued/...WHAT measurements?  WHAT analysis?  Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis.  And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.
Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests.  I have been bitten.  I know how you operate.  Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim. 
So you keep telling us.  The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity.  I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS.  Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk.  Unfortunately.
IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance.  And the impedance relates to the applied frequency.  If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt.  And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply.  Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim.  Do you even read my answers? 
To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame.  One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy.  Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.

continued/...You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing.  We keep asking for evidence of this.  You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence.  Where?  In those videos? 
My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim.  When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests.  Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void.  YOU have made this my full time concern.  Not me.
While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim.  This requirement is ABSURD  and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM.  How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim?  Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient?  Without that thesis - there IS no claim.  The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS.  NOTHING ELSE.
I've argued this AT LENGTH.  Just go back and CHECK your facts.  This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.

Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose

And as for this slew of misrepresentations.
When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence.  We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration.  It's not difficult.  Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this.  The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples.  You can't.  You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope.  And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT?  HOW ODD?We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests.  Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations.  I've referenced it here.Rigorous calibrations?  Really?  And then it's out by a small percentage?  PLEASE?  And let me re-iterate TK.  Here....
It's all SPIN.  Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim.  And even now you have NOT addressed our claim.  Only something that you infer may be related to our claim.  LOL.  And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

Look everyone on the content of all nonsense postings above that wasn't even directed towards Rosemary and are you also tired of getting a "NOTIFICATION" with each posting after posting on the same subject matter from Rosemary whom cannot put everything in one post.

This trash from Rosemary has been posted over and over again in the "LOCKED DOWN" thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/  with a couple things in common. Rosemary has only learned how to falsify documentation a YouTube video and cherry pick information to justify her THESIS.

Where are all the so called EXPERTS of Rosemary's or the authors of her falsified papers and YouTube video.

Rosemary the SUPER TROLL is nothing but another fraud like "MyLow" http://pesn.com/2009/05/19/9501542_Fish-line_discovered_in_Mylow-magnet-motor/  ..... plain and simple   

If "BANNING" her is not a option for some odd unknown reason, Rosemary should have all her postings "moderated" to weed out her lies and force her to some how stay on topic.


FTC

[TinselKoala]

I'm tired of this nonsense. Now she's comparing me to a criminal sociopath-- when HER endless series of lies and distortions leaves an indelible trail of slime behind her.

Rosemary has no right whatsoever to ask me any questions about what I'm doing with Tar Baby at all... since she denies it's a replication and I have also explicitly stated that it's not a replication... it's a duplication. Rosemary, on the other hand, has a clear OBLIGATION to address any and all issues about her work that might be raised, however and whenever and however frequently and by whom they might be raised... because it is SHE who is making the extraordinary claim on insufficient evidence.

She particularly has no right whatsoever to demand measurements from me that she has not performed or published herself, nor does she have any right whatsoever to dictate or question my scheduling of tests.

Neither does she have the knowledge or the right to criticise my video demonstrations, as each and every one of them is designed to address and illustrate one or two particular points that are clearly articulated and do not contain claims having to do with the Ainslie circuit ... they only _relate_ to it.

She most particularly does not have the right to fill pages of thread with irrelevant rants and continued lies and distortions.

Therefore...until further notice...

Further discussion of Tar Baby testing, NERD claims and discrepancies, and so on can continue.... on my YouTube channel, in the comment sections of the associated video demonstrations. If there's anything that doesn't fit into a comment under a video, you can PM me on YT.

In this thread... I will continue to say one thing: Ainslie will never show a definitive test of her claims. PROVE ME WRONG.

ETA: I am fairly certain that there are more people reading this website that would love to see ME fail and fall on my face in the dirt.... more people, in other words, who are against me in some way than are supporters of my viewpoint. There are probably more people that want Ainslie to be successful than want me to be. All right then... GET CRACKING, you lot. PROVE ME WRONG with your own demonstrations and tests. JUST DO IT, there will be plenty of people watching and egging you on. PROVE ME WRONG about what I assert with regard to TarBaby, instrumentation, oscilloscopes, power meters, Ainslie and her circuit, or the nature of gamma rays or the fire on the surface of the sun. PROVE ME WRONG.

Or stfu.

[powercat]

TK,
she is incapable of proving you're wrong and she has no supporters anymore that's why she keeps barking at you, on and on and on, the only power she has is Over Lunacy