Testing the TK Tar Baby

[mrsean2k]

Guys,

NOTA BENE our lexicographers have long thought that there are missing fundamental words, words that violate our standard grammatical protocols, and that can lead to free vocabulary.

AND also - notwithstanding little TKs attempt to use a spellchecker, which he is SAWELY unqualificated to do on that disgustipating thread of his, would end the tirrany of Big Dictionary.

He has not refuted our spelling, indeed he cannot. How else could he explain that measured Negative Verbiage at Scrabble?

And I can ensure everyone that I will be releasing everything through Open Sores after I've addressed my recent gmeast infection.

Dullest and Worst Retards as always

Rose

[TinselKoala]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie

You might want to make a few corrections on THIS PAGE describing your "work", Maria. You have the wrong schematic up, YET AGAIN, showing the Q2x4 transistors on the RIGHT SIDE (that is, the WRONG side) as the "latest version" and you also have the Quantum, completely incorrect, schematic up as well.

The circuit here is designed to route energy back through the battery supply to ensure that it recharges the supply thereby conserving the charge of the batteries.

In other words, the batteries are recharged by the circuit and do not deplete. That is what it says!!

Ainslie has also lately claimed that she has NOT claimed that the batteries ARE RECHARGED by the circuit, in contradiction to the PESWiki page... and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to this passage from the second daft manuscript, copied from her forum today:

The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 and inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of CEMF. A reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enable the generation of a "burst oscillation" mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.

[TinselKoala]

Hi lickle TK - our little Bryan Little - our indomitable little Pickle - our 'ickle' chicken licken - all of 72 pickles tall.   Golly.  That's REALLY big.

Can someone please explain to this ignorant, overweeningly arrogant idiot lying troll Rosemary Ainslie just exactly what a fool she makes of herself when she posts things like this?

That is truly a statement worthy of Maria Krebs.

Here's your big pickle, Krebs. Where are you going to put it?

[TinselKoala]

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

The first bolded statement of course refers to the batteries' rated capacity. The second bolded statement is a baldfaced lie, as shown by Ainslie's own data as presented in the scopeshots over the course of the reported experimental trials.

Guys - I have pointed this out elsewhere - but possibly need to do so again.  Our favourite 'ickle little pickle' - is trying his hand at semantics.  Bless him.  Somehow he manages to read the term recharge and discharge of a battery as 'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'. Not at all bad.  Not too shabby... considering.  I take it you know that he suffers from a genetically determined handicap, which restricts his intellect to that of your average farmyard goose.  Which is possibly why he answers to the name 'Chicken Licken'.  This is actually the name of that well known 'ickle little pickle' that he likes to flaunt.  Poor sod.  He's rather overstating things...  here and there.

You are really a piece of work, AINSLIE. You insult me without cause and worse than that, you cannot even support your insults with any factual references. Yet I show beyond possibility of doubt that YOU are a liar, an idiot, a fool, and a bad poet, with references and quotations and images and other support for all of my contentions. I prove that you are a liar, over and over, with quotations and references. You cannot "prove" in any way that I answer to "chicken licken" or that I "like to flaunt" anything at all. Nor can you support any contention that I "suffer from a genetically determined handicap" of any kind, you insulting liar. My goodness, your lawyers are going to love this stuff.

Ainslie forgets that the CAPITALISED PHRASE above is just what she says here, in these places and more:

Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.

the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply.

without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source.

Ainslie-Krebs is entangled in her lies. Some time ago she tried to say that she didn't claim that the batteries recharge. Then she tries to claim that she hasn't referred to battery capacity or performance. Then she tries to claim that she hasn't claimed that the batteries don't deplete. Now she apparently is trying to claim that she has not claimed NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY  when she herself says:

Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.

That last is of course a lie, as I have proven by showing her data properly all in one place, but also it DEFINITELY DOES CLAIM what she is now claiming it does not claim.

Seriously.... what is the matter with this woman? How can she contradict herself in the same paragraph, continue to lie about things that have been long shown to be false, and carry on with her overweening and incredibly insulting behaviour? I have never seen anything like it.  Her utter and abject hypocrisy is only exceeded by her total idiocy and transparent mendacity.

Now.  TK's entire thread related to this subject - relies on the fiction that our papers claim anything at all related to battery performance.  This is gross misrepresentation and I challenge him to show where, in our paper - this claim is made.

What an astounding and amazingly incredible fool she is. Literally in-credible, as in completely NON-credible.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie asserts in her daft manuscript: "Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all."

Allow me to decode:
VOLTAGE is Potential Difference.
"ANY LOSS AT ALL" means no discharge, whatsoever.
ANY means...well, it means ANY.
"they" refers to the BATTERY SUPPLY.

Guys - I have pointed this out elsewhere - but possibly need to do so again.  Our favourite 'ickle little pickle' - is trying his hand at semantics.  Bless him.  Somehow he manages to read the term recharge and discharge of a battery as 'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'. Not at all bad.  Not too shabby... considering.  I take it you know that he suffers from a genetically determined handicap, which restricts his intellect to that of your average farmyard goose.  Which is possibly why he answers to the name 'Chicken Licken'.  This is actually the name of that well known 'ickle little pickle' that he likes to flaunt.  Poor sod.  He's rather overstating things...  here and there.

Not too shabby. She manages to refute herself, stick her foot further down her throat, libel me with insane insults and prove that she is arrogant beyond all imagining.... in one paragraph. Not too shabby at all. Considering.