Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Preserved for posterity.

Note the amazing hypocrisy and overweening arrogance of this deluded old woman. Not only does she lie, misrepresent, misidentify, insult and wheedle, she pretends to instruct! When she herself has been the perpetrator of the greatest fraud ever to grace these pages, surpassing even MyLOW and Archer Quinn in its destructiveness.

Ainslie, to address just a single point in your calumny of prevarication preserved below: I don't know about Brian Little, but I personally have indeed referred to your "papers".... really daft manuscripts.... many times, with chapter and verse. Several of us have pointed out discrepancies in several of the figures presented in both manuscripts. The Circuit Diagrams in the two manuscripts do not match either each other, nor the actual circuit used in the reported experiments. Several claims that were completely impossible were made, like the 5.9 megaJoules claim. The "explanation" cartoons in the second daft manuscript do not correspond to ANY of the claimed circuits actually used, and so cannot be explanations of anything. The two "papers" in their official "publications" on Rossi's JNP do not even agree in their schematics given, and the reports in the manuscripts do not agree with the better, real-time reports made by YOU, Ainslie, in your blogs at the time the experiments were done. I have referred to your "papers" first and foremost many times and you have NEVER resolved the discrepancies. Oh.... yes.... in one of your "edits" you have removed, without comment or explanation, the 5.9 megaJoules claim.... but it persists in the "official" publication still.

In short, you lie with every post you make, on your own forum just as you have done here.

Not only that, but every time you refer to me as "little", as "Brian Little" (or "Bryan"), as homosexual like some of your best friends, or refer to a "pickle".... you are making yourself even more of a complete and utter laughingstock than you have already been.

Can you just imagine the response of a journal editor, when I point them to your little forum post below?

And how do these cartoons from your daft manuscript explain anything.... when they don't correspond to your actual circuit but rather to the circuit you THOUGHT you were using.....? Explain that. You cannot, because you are such a joke you don't even see that your own data and "explanations" are contradictory.

[TinselKoala]

The idiocy from the amazing lunatic Rosemary Ainslie continues. When will the woman learn? She continues her systematic "expose" of her imaginary monsters and her delusions.

And she continues her lies and false accusations, as usual without giving any support or reference. She attributes to Bryan Little, through TinselKoala, an "open admission of strategies".

What's particularly sad is the open admission of  their strategies.  Bryan - writing as Tinsel Koala - freely admits to his intention to deceive the public.  He has also - openly - discussed the strategy of treating me with utter disrespect - basically as this should have served to destroy my own credibility.  As mentioned - thankfully - he's overplayed his hand.  He's got the bite of a rabid rottweiler - but  he's also got that level of judgement and constraint.   

I have no idea what Bryan Little might or might not have "admitted freely"..... but the assertion that I have admitted any such intention to deceive the public is a typical AINS-LIE. She cannot provide support for this lying claim of hers, because it is just that: a lie. I have never "admitted" such an intention, nor have I attempted to perform any such deception. But I will again point out the many egregious deceptions engaged in by ROSEMARY AINSLIE HERSELF. One only needs to recall the DEMO VIDEO, which she at first tried to claim that she didn't even post. From the March 22 date of its posting until the April 18 date of .99's reveal of the actual schematic used in the circuit, ROSEMARY AINSLIE engaged in a deliberate program of deception and outright lying, for the over 400 forum posts and replies in the discussion of the circuit made during that time period. There is also the continuing deception that she engages in over the nature and quality of her data. Ainslie is a liar plain and simple, a severely deluded one at that, and I WELCOME the exposure of any and all TRUTH in the matter of Ainslie and her claims.

However, that TRUTH will not be forthcoming from Ainslie, as her continuing pattern of delusion, mendacity, deception and prevarication.... continues without restraint or abatement.


Who is this Bryan Little, anyway? I'd like to inform him about the criminal libels that Ainslie is committing against his good name, and see what his response might be.

[gmeast]

TK & all


That stuff of mine you refer to on your Oct. 14 post was a long time ago.  I, for one, am very willing to admit that measurement is HARD to do.  If everyone would feel better if I admitted publicly to have made some errors in analysis, well so be it.  I boo boo'd! But it was because I was caught up in the excitement of the potential for this technology.  OH NO! WHAT? you mean I'M HUMAN? Will any of you here claim the same? NOT!


One other valuable lesson I have learned is there is NO GOOD WAY to accurately measure nano-second transients ... meters, scopes, analyzers or whatever.  So I have adopted more practical ways to determine COP ... and it is only specific to this technology (maybe).  I simply use a control (precision resistor), draw down the battery bank, graph the results V vs T.  Then I run the circuit, record V vs T(eq), run another eq dt calibration on RL, graph it then compare the two graphs.  The results from this are most telling. The only thing I use a scope for now is relative work ... tuning minimums and maximums and other setup activities.


I have to agree with some other comments regarding the claim of COP>17, etc.  I am disappointed that I have not seen these magnitudes, but ANYTHING COP>1 is simply awesome.  I made a recent post on the FG thread of Rosie's site. It's interesting.


Oh, I am NOT obligated to make any apology to anyone or to admit anything to any one person in particular.  I stated what my errors were on Rosie' site, but no one listened.  That's your guy's problem, not mine .... do you hear that poynt99?  The only reason I did not address you personally on the 'error thing' was because of your arrogance and narcissism.  TK, I have no need nor desire to refute anyone.  You guys can continue on the road you presently travel, I'm confidently moving forward with this.


I have the validating evidence I need justifying this technology and am now aiming at a clearer understanding of it, it's odd nature and eventually a scale-up effort and implementation.


Thanks.  Regards

[TinselKoala]

You do not have the evidence that is convincing enough for a scientific report or even an article in an IEEE journal. However, your post seems to indicate that you might be willing to communicate on real issues concerning your present work.

It would be nice to see a specific acknowledgement of your specific error of using the duty cycle twice, so that we could know that you understand fully, even though you no longer wish to use the Ainslie-approved "vi dt" method. Actually what she seems to mean is the computation of the time integral of an instantaneous power curve to give the total energy transferred over the time of integration. Which method is totally correct if the input measurements are valid and represent what they are supposed to represent.

Your calorimetry is a good effort for a first attempt. But it is fatally flawed and you could easily do much better. Mile High, in some earlier posts, gave some excellent suggestions for accurate calorimetry and power dissipation measurements at a load resistance. An honest and sincere researcher would not be happy with a single result such as the one you are reporting, but would seek confirmation by as many different methods as possible. In addition, the chosen methodology must itself be validated by using it on a known, underunity system. Perhaps you'd like to try it on one of my systems, and see if you get the expected underunity result.

Using the methodology you describe, in combination with the false precision you often report, an error of 20 percent is well within the realm of possibility. Much more so than a real "overunity" result. In addition, as you would see if you had been paying attention to my demonstrations, the mere fact that you can dissipate more power in the load using a pulsed drive instead of a straight, load-resistance-determined DC drive, or conversely get the same apparent dissipated power in the load using apparently less input with a pulsed drive.... this mere fact is not so remarkable and can be reproduced much more easily than you are doing, and more dramatically as well, by lighting an ordinary tungsten filament incandescent light bulb twice as brightly as "normal", as I show by several different methods in some of my videos.

I'm glad that you are acknowledging that you are seeing nothing even close to what Ainslie claimed. We note that your circuit incorporates many elements that were not evident in her original Quantum circuit, and we also note that your experiments with her _actual_ reported circuit did not pan out so well.

Your circuit incorporates a mosfet driver, a correctly functioning PWM pulse generator, a different dutycycle and operating frequency, and a recirculation diode. Ainslie's reported circuit simply does not work as she claimed, neither as a COP>17 device nor as a heater at the stated duty cycle.

Your circuit is teaching you a lot about power measurements, and the better you get, the more you learn.... and the closer you get to unity performance. Do you dare to continue, and perform proper calorimetric power measurements of the sort MileHigh suggested, and to validate your methodology on a known non-OU system, like an ordinary high-efficiency PWM motor driver driving a resistive load? Note that your comparison to a DC-powered load is only half of the "control" experiment. You need to perform the entire control experiment: You are comparing your system to a DC drive, using the Same resistive load, and you must also compare a known, non-OU pulsed power system to a DC drive using the Same resistive load, in order to validate your overall methodology.

Now, on another topic: What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?
What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

[gmeast]

You do not have the evidence that is convincing enough for a scientific report or even an article in an IEEE journal. However, your post seems to indicate that you might be willing to communicate on real issues concerning your present work.
...................................

I know it's not totally convincing yet, but it's convincing enough for me to continue.  I haven't shared all of my results, and I don't intend to.  And at present I don't care about a scientific report in an IEEE journal.  And what do you mean by "real issues"? I have landed on a comfortable platform for testing and evaluation.  It suits me fine for now.  I weighed the risks of posting on your site and came up neutral.  It's of no benefit to me but some others might benefit from this exchange.  I must say you still are prone to ripping someone in the name of getting the last word.  That's a character flaw you must live with.  I don't intend to address any specific errors ... that's in the past.  I'm moving forward, I suggest you find something constructive to do with your time and intelligence. Assassination doesn't suit or serve anyone. [size=78%] [/size]