Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

BIPS.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.

I do not misrepresent your work.  That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt.  That's the first time TK.  In what is it?  25 pages or thereby?  That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested.  And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.  That's an interesting visual reference.  Why did you see need to pass it by?  So quickly?  And I see that you've finally managed to get the those oscillations consistent between each switching cycle.  Well done.  Your previous best efforts confused the repositioning of that watt meter from what you termed the 'output' and the 'input'.  Both terms are entirely inapplicable.  And then you compounded that 'confusion' with the erroneous display of a voltage applicable to that current display - at something in the region of 7 volts.  Will you please explain this.  And when and if you are showing us numbers on anything at all - then it would be as well tell let us know what those numbers represent.  Else you're using implication and allegation.  Not scientific TK.  Not at all.

And WHEN are you going to give us some kind of assessment of the wattage dissipated as heat?  You accused us of NOT doing this.  We HAVE.  But you still HAVE NOT.  In fact what you claimed is that the heat that was dissipated at the load resistor resulted from the 'twiddling' as you put it - of the offset - prior to the oscillation.  How could you determine this?   And what is the earthly good of doing your battery depletion exercise without giving us those results?  We still don't know what that rate of discharge is.  We still don't know the battery capacity.  Are you keeping this hidden?  For some reason?  Or do you rely on all that ambiguity?  Where you can IMPLY anything you like and you leave it to everyone's exhausted patience and attention - to take a stab at the sums for themselves.  And then you duck behind the need to do this by implying that if we were all sufficiently 'expert' then we'd see those well hidden values?

You're dancing the dance of the 7 veils.  We need clarity.  Kindly oblige us all.

Regards,
Rosie Posie

[TinselKoala]

You do misrepresent my work in EVERY post you make, liar.
For example:

I do not misrepresent your work.  That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt.  That's the first time TK.  In what is it?  25 pages or thereby?  That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested.  And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.

You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work.

This is just ONE of the many prior times I have shown the voltage across the CVR. You lie about my work with every post you make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA
Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z95kvoE7s
And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI

Note the dates, you liar, and go and play somewhere else. You even made some misrepresentation comment about this last one, so I know you have seen it before. Therefore, you are a liar, because you know damn well that I have shown "shunt" or CVR traces before.

You constantly misrepresent my work. Yesterday you were claiming that I said something about a 10 ohm resistor, which I never did. Today you are claiming I haven't shown CVR traces, which I clearly have. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, Rosemary.

Now. Please go away and lie about somebody else's work for a change.


WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.

[TinselKoala]

Some recent quotes from Ainslie:

TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery. 

. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not

Preserved for posterity, emphasis mine.

One simply must wonder though... if over unity is not being claimed..... why is the Overunity Prize being applied for?

And again the claim of COP _greater than_ infinity is made. Varying levels of efficiency, all exceeding infinity. COP numbers--- different numbers--- all over infinity. All different, all over infinity. There it is in black and white, in her own words as posted on this very thread. She's not claiming over unity... just several different efficiencies, all different, all exceeding infinity.

And again... several more claims are made without any references or support. If high heat can be achieved with the single mosfet, positive gate drive _and 72 volts_.... why then was only 48 volts used for the demo of this mode? One battery was pulled out of the stack without explanation, and this has never yet been explained.... by anyone except me.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is getting really interesting.  TK.  My goodness.  You DID reference those shunt voltages?  And I missed them?  Somehow?  I'm getting old. Clearly.  Delighted that you set me straight because if you didn't I wouldn't have noticed them.  God forbid.  Luckily I've made up for lost time and can now count myself in as one of the 69 viewers that it has well deserved.  Here are some questions against the first video referenced.  Hopefully more of our readers will take the trouble to look at this - CLOSELY.

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.