Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Polly Parrot squawks again. Look at all the terms she uses!!
Conversion of electrical to mechanical energy...... from a person who doesn't understand the difference between a Joule and a Watt...
Einstein Equivalence Principle.... quick, take away her internet access and then ask her to define this principle, with examples... she cannot. She has no idea what she's talking about!!
The Standard Model.... she uses this phrase over and over again without understanding at all what the Standard Model really is. Same with her use of "standard measurement protocols".... which she does not understand and doesn't use, even though we have given her plenty of information and references as to what those actually are!
Counter Electromotive force..... again, a parroted phrase with absolutely no understanding whatsoever!
And the claim of "our numbers prove it"...... is just silly. Her numbers prove that she has lied about her experiment over and over again. Her numbers prove that her batteries do discharge. Her numbers prove that she did not "bring water to boil". Her numbers prove that the schematics presented in the demo video and in the daft manuscripts were not the actual circuit used for the experiments reported. Her numbers.... the five rejections, the five different schematics, the four different versions of the same documents all with differing information and no explanations, the four forum bannings that I know of ...... her numbers prove her mendacity and prevarication, nothing more.

Squawking up a Blue Streak, that parrot is.

[gmeast]

That there is the entire root of your problem gmeast, and why you are hurtling headlong down the road to failure.

Any researcher worth his salt will attempt to refute himself at every opportunity, what he will not do is set out to prove something he has already decided is true.

I myself completely junked the design for the superheated electrolysis cell after 10 years of work on it. Three short months later I had completely redesigned it and released it so that my peers can tell me if it works or not, not the other way around.

Your attitude stinks, your skills in this area of research are questionable from what I have seen, and it is likely any success you have will hinge on a modern version of this:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm

I wish you luck, your going to need it!

Ha! this forum is not a group of my peers.  You haven't seen anything more because I've stopped showing.   Anyway, to all Americans, Happy Thanksgiving.

[TinselKoala]

Why do you post here then, troll? Just trying to get a reaction? Things kind of dull at the honeytrap?

[TinselKoala]

If Ainslie claims to have used "standard measurement protocols" she lies, because she has not done so.

Standard measurement protocols for measuring battery performance are contained in various ASTM and IEEE documents which have been referred to her attention... and she has ignored them completely, substituting her use of the simple, no-load voltage reading as an indicator of battery state of charge... when it is no such thing.

Standard measurement protocols for measuring current flows in oscillating systems involve much more sophisticated procedures and techniques and instrumentation than Ainslie has ever used. This too has been pointed out to her and she has been referred to documentation from LeCroy, Tektronix, Agilent, and other publishers explaining the ACTUAL standard protocols for this determination.... which, again, she has either ignored completely or merely paid lip service to. In addition, her failures and the results of them on her measurements and conclusions derived from them have been explained, analyzed, illustrated and duplicated.... and she rejects all such REAL standard analysis as being inapplicable, wrong, or simply far over her head.

Standard measurement protocols for ENERGY and POWER include such arcane things as ENERGY INTEGRALS computed by oscilloscopes receiving proper data from their probes, properly programmed and properly interpreted. Ainslie knows how to turn a scope on... and she does so before every measurement, then turns the scope off. (Standard measurement protocols call for even digital scopes to warm up for at least 30 minutes to stabilize and they should not be turned on and off every ten or fifteen minutes. That is just silly.)

Standard measurement protocols of heat produced in a load include such things as controlled environments, proper heat transfer materials, calibrated sensors, correct measurement points, and more. Ainslie tapes a thermocouple to a load hanging in air, then when it's really hot, she dunks it into a jug of water, and calls the resulting numbers "temperature data". Ainslie has no clue at all about standard calorimetry protocols or even standard physical power measurement protocols, and once again, this is deliberate, carefully protected ignorance on her part.

In short, Ainslie is ignorant of REAL standard measurement protocols, deliberately and egregiously so, and has never used them in any way in any of her reported "experiments". Whenever she claims to have done so, she lies.

In addition, she is FAR from being the "first" to do these things and to make these claims based on them. Her only distinction, besides being allegedly female, is that she is by far the most snidely and openly insulting, ignorant, and overweeningly arrogant of all the people who have made overunity claims, even surpassing Joe Newman in obnoxiousness. To claim to be the "first" is again simply another Ains-lie.

[gmeast]

You do not need scopes or any sophisticated instruments or equipment to analyze the heater technology.  The more sophisticated instruments you use, the greater the number of possible interpretations of the readings.  "Simple" is better in most cases.