Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

Are you seriously proposing that I do not defend our work and my good name against an attack from you?  Are you proposing that you are entitled to denigrate our work and our claim and my name - unchallenged?  I'm not sure that you could EVER justify that TinselKoala - not EVER.  And certainly not when you resort to slanderous comments and less than satisfactory scientific arguments.  These are the options.  You take my posts that are required for defense or your stop posting at a level that requires that defense.

Of course my challenges are unacceptable to you.  They contradict your allegations with scientific argument.  Repeatedly. 

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Again you lie, plain and simple.

Not once, not ONE SINGLE TIME, have you been able to refute me with a demonstration, a checkable reference, or actual data. NEVER NOT A SINGLE TIME.

Yet I have refuted you over and over and over. You have been wrong about many things you've said, and I and others have proved it.

And your "papers" have nothing to do with science at all. You have no idea what the scientific method consists of. You have never tried to RULE OUT your "hypothesis", you have only tried to prove it. And failed miserably, by the way.

How long did it take you finally to admit that your 25.6 million Joules calculation was bogus? Do you still maintain that One Joule = One Watt Per Second? When will you retract your conclusion that was based on the incorrect calculation?

When will you admit that you lied about the circuit diagram, several times? When will you admit to the many lies in the video demonstration?

When will you admit that NOBODY is coming to your aid in support?

When will you admit that you, right now, are LYING about "not claiming overunity or COP>infinity"?

WHEN WILL YOU DO YOUR TEST? Never, that's when.

WHEN WILL YOU STOP LYING? Never, that's when.

[MileHigh]

Wow, give me a mosh pit or give me a padded room!

Rosemary:

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.

There is no "second energy supply source."  You are just an amateur little old lady with fantasies of zipons that can't punch her way out of a wet paper electronics bag.

Change your batteries for much smaller fresh and new batteries and do some load tests and finally kill this and put this nonsensical obsession to bed.  This whole time you have never done any proper battery load testing and you have been tricked by an improperly done DSO measurement.  You have also been tricked by the fact that you have been using very large batteries that you never load tested.  Even the most expensive DSO in the world is only as good as the person using it.

Me:  You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.

You:  There is only one way to measure power delivered and power dissipated.  Well established measurement protocols.  They can't be improved on.

Bullshit, your comment is garbage and you cling to it for dear life.   You try to awkwardly deny the whole scientific method when you say, "They can't be improved on."  Bullshit again, you and your whole team have been repeatedly exposed as borderline clueless rank amateurs.

There are only two possible ways I can see this ending for you:

1.  You do a second round of tests and to your shock you confirm that the batteries are discharging.  Shades of the LEDs of DOOM.  Then you fade into obscurity.

2.  You do a second round of tests and no matter what you insist that you have "discovered a second energy supply source."  Then you fade into obscurity.

Trust me, a woman that can't even understand the fact that power is dissipated in a resistor as long as there is current flow is never ever going to see one of her ridiculous papers published.  Not in a million years.

There is no happy ending for you Rosemary because this is all nonsense.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Things she's said that aren't true: (I found so many in just this thread alone that I got tired of it before I was even halfway through.) Items in RED are direct cut-pastes from her posts.. in other words, her own words.

1. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.

No...they aren't. They seem to be 50 or perhaps even 60 amp-hours each.

2. Joules = 1 watt per second.

Er.... no. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is one WattSecond. Very different and not mathematically equivalent at all.

3. 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.

Er... do the math. This calculation is completely wrong in at least three different ways.

4. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

A nominal "12 volt" battery of the type used by Ainslie will indicate well over 13 volts when fully charged, and will not drop below 12 volts until nearly completely DISCHARGED. So the fact that the batteries are still OVER 12 volts is actually evidence that they are substantially DISCHARGED... or they would be over 13 volts each, not 12.

5. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

Er... only if you use the bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure. Using the correct figure the battery could have performed 10 such tests without depleting its charge. Yet RA has never retracted this claim. Therefore... since she knows the 25.6 megaJoule figure is wrong.... it is a continuing and outrageous lie.



6. 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.

Read the explanation in Wiki again. One Watt is not One Joule and one Joule is not one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT interchangeable, and the WIKI explains it correctly and RA once again is distorting the reference and lying about her claim.

7. Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.

But previously she said, "That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

and

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit." These statements cannot all be true... so one or more of them is a lie.

8. 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.


I have never once taken the voltage "across the load resistor". In fact without isolated probes or a differential voltage probe, you cannot monitor voltage across the load, because it is "high-side switched" and doesn't connect directly to the negative common ground point. I never said in the video any such thing... what I ALWAYS say is that I am monitoring the common mosfet drains, on the transistor side of the load. And neither have I ever "complained" any such thing. I have said that they are not typically showing the mosfet common drain voltage... a very different thing altogether.


9. TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements. 

This is false. I have posted many videos containing precise measurements of many quantities.

10. This is not clear.  Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330?  In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic.  You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all.  Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery?  At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal?  Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal?  If the former - then the readings should be co-incident.  If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim.  And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing?  To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output.  In which case?   On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery.  Which is a negative voltage value.  If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge.  And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit.  Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation.  I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive.  And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other.  Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results.  That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.   

This entire post is full of lies, distortions and inaccuracies. I have shown very clearly, before this post, where and how the CH is used in the circuit. I have indeed replicated the waveform on the batteries. And that part about my load "not sufficiently inductive" is a real howler... since my load is 74 microHenry and hers is CLAIMED to be only a couple of microHenry. And there certainly is consistency in my results. I can turn the system on and make ANY of the illustrated waveforms immediately...because I understand the circuit.


11. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude. And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.

Two at once. Clearly my battery oscillations DO have the "same amplitude", as demonstrated in several videos,  and clearly... my load resistor is 74 microHenry, which is MORE INDUCTIVE than the (unbelievable) 2.23 microHenry they claim to have used.

12.  Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery.  This results in a negative wattage.  We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit.  It's that simple.

False.
The unpublished, many times rejected draft document that RA calls a "paper" has many errors in it. The data and measurements are full of errors. RA does not show any evidence of what she claims, she shows errors in data collection, analysis and interpretation. There is no experimental support for her claims in the "papers". And I am not required to repeat her errors in order to replicate her circuit.


13. We do not claim over unity.

This is clearly false, as you have claimed overunity many times. In English, claiming that the batteries do not discharge while doing useful work is CLAIMING OVERUNITY. Applying for an Overunity Prize on an Overunity website... is claiming OVERUNITY.

That gets us up to about page 23 of this thread. There are more lies and false statements from RA yet to come.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some quotes from the demo video, said by the presenter with RA standing behind him:
Quotes from the video, the unnamed presenter speaking, words in red:

1) 0:20- "The circuit diagram before you is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup"

This is false.

2) 0:30: "What we have is 5 mosfets mounted in parallel" 

This is false.

3) 1:59: "C represents the input to the gates of the mosfet" as he gestures to the board.

Another false statement. The function generator is seen to be connected to point F by the red alligator clip.

4) 2:05:  "F WOULD BE THE DRAIN, THE COMMON DRAIN..."

Rosemary has claimed that the common drain voltage isn't shown in this video, and that the GREEN trace does not represent the mosfet common drain. But it is, and it does.

5) 3:09  (stuttering a bit and mumbling) "we can see the battery voltage mumble mumble roughly sixty two volts, BEARING IN MIND we have 5 twelve volt batteries so theoretically we should have'bout sixty volts but thats.... mumble."

That's another lie, is what he's trying to say.

Of course we know that a fully charged 12 volt battery of this type should measure well over 13 volts so the stack of five should be at about 65 volts if it were fully charged. The fact that the meter indicates 62 volts isn't as much of a mystery to me as it evidently is to the presenter-- as it actually indicates that the batteries are substantially DISCHARGED.. or they would have been over 65 volts.

6) 3:53:  "AND THE GREEN of course the actual drain, drainback (mumbles) .. the the drain voltage."

Again... Ainslie has berated and castigated me several times for saying that the Green trace in this video is the common mosfet drain voltage.

Ainslie makes no corrections to the presenter's narration... and thus is responsible for the lies in the video demo.


QED: she lies and distorts my work, my data, her own data, external references, the things other people say and do... all of it. None of what she says can be trusted in any context. None of it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, 

I suppose I need to comment on this post from MileHigh as well.  I'll try and keep it brief as possible.  It's only topical in as much as it's not scientific.  Science has never been the issue on this thread.

Wow, give me a mosh pit or give me a padded room!

Not sure that this is relevant.  Presumably you're commenting on your mental stability?

There is no "second energy supply source."  You are just an amateur little old lady with fantasies of zipons that can't punch her way out of a wet paper electronics bag.

Not sure that this is accurate.  I'm not little.  I'm 5ft 9" and then some. I have no 'fantasies' related to zipons. I have a proposal that requires the existence of these particles.  And I'm managing to punch some serious holes in TK's arguments.  The only accurate statement here is that I'm old and that I'm an amateur.  I keep really good company in both categories.

Change your batteries for much smaller fresh and new batteries and do some load tests and finally kill this and put this nonsensical obsession to bed.  This whole time you have never done any proper battery load testing and you have been tricked by an improperly done DSO measurement.  You have also been tricked by the fact that you have been using very large batteries that you never load tested.  Even the most expensive DSO in the world is only as good as the person using it.

We certainly used batteries with exceptional capacity.  And you're right.  We have not tested these to their duration.  BUT.  There is no way that you, nor TK nor anyone at all can misrepresent the results from a good oscilloscope.  Just can't be done.

Bullshit, your comment is garbage and you cling to it for dear life.   You try to awkwardly deny the whole scientific method when you say, "They can't be improved on."  Bullshit again, you and your whole team have been repeatedly exposed as borderline clueless rank amateurs.

This comment is slanderous, unqualified and unprofessional.  Which also means that it is very much 'on topic' with this thread.

There are only two possible ways I can see this ending for you:

1.  You do a second round of tests and to your shock you confirm that the batteries are discharging.  Shades of the LEDs of DOOM.  Then you fade into obscurity.
2.  You do a second round of tests and no matter what you insist that you have "discovered a second energy supply source."  Then you fade into obscurity.

This indicates that the thread topic now also includes the art of prophesy.  Which makes it surprisingly appropriate - on a great many levels.

Trust me, a woman that can't even understand the fact that power is dissipated in a resistor as long as there is current flow is never ever going to see one of her ridiculous papers published.  Not in a million years.

I agree.  Fortunately I am not such a woman.

There is no happy ending for you Rosemary because this is all nonsense.

I'm not looking for happy endings MileHigh.  I'm looking for happy beginnings.  And that's where our experimental evidence points.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie