Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84218
  • *Latest: RhineX

  • *Total Posts: 897395
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 23
  • *Total: 24

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1615440 times)

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4710 on: August 26, 2012, 08:05:39 PM »
Sadly, and no doubt coincidentally, @gmeast has replied to one of my posts after I have been blocked. I am therefore unable to relay to him exactly where he stated that he observer "only" an 0.8v drop in the course of his run.

ETA: for your convenience, Greg, the last paragraph of reply #92 on the "basic circuit" thread, where you state:

"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing"

It is INDEED important. Just not the way you seem to think it is.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4710 on: August 26, 2012, 08:05:39 PM »

Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4711 on: August 26, 2012, 09:04:45 PM »
Didn't you know, Sean, that the E-SP forum is only open to people who are willing to pat each other on the back?

Example (paraphrased):
Chessnyt: Look, I made a video! See behind me this thing I made?
Rosemary: Oh, Chess! That's absolutely brilliant! Good job! Way to go! I especially liked your SmartScarecrow interview! It was AMAZING!
Chessnyt: Thanks! I didn't even really say anything, but I appreciate your compliments!
Rosemary: Hey, gmeast! Wow, look! you're working on something! It's Amazing! Good Job!
gmeast: It's not really your circuit, but it seems to give me similar measurements.
Chessnyt: That's great gmeast! Welcome to our pat-on-the-back forum!
Poynt99: Umm... you may want to consider the possibility that your measurements, because of the way they're taken, are showing results that aren't exactly true.
Rosemary: What do you mean, Poynt99?
Poynt99: Well, it's like this: All apples are apples. Some are green; some are red... but they're all apples. Oranges are oranges. Some are orange; some are red... but they're all oranges.
Rosemary: Ah, so what you've said is if it's a red orange, it's actually an apple.
Poynt99: No, that's not what I said.
Rosemary: Well, let's just forget about that for now. Take a look at gmeast's stuff, will you?
Poynt99: I have, I think he may be wrong about some things.
Rosemary: Just how the Hell would you know?
Poynt99: I don't have time for this.
mrsean2k: (deleted, because it wasn't in the form of a compliment)
Rosemary: Sugar, spice, everything nice! If only the world believed in orange/apples... then they'd be true!
mrsean2k: Um... did I say something wrong? I just meant that making an error like this is understandable, and that it shouldn't reflect on one's reputation.
gmeast: It wasn't--I didn't--somebody help me out here. Why are you being so mean to me?
mrsean2k: I'm just pointing out some facts, as I see them.
Poynt99:I agree with mrsean2k's facts.
Rosemary: There's no room for  "facts" on our forum unless they're of a complimentary nature.
gmeast: B-b-but I-
Rosemary: There, there, gmeast. I've made the bad man go away. You're doing wonderfully! Well done! Good job!
Rosemary: Poynt99, I know I asked you to look at gmeast's stuff... but what I meant to say was to actually leave him alone.

etc. etc. etc.


polln8r

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4712 on: August 26, 2012, 09:25:51 PM »
I sort if expected RA to act that way fairly quickly - when I went to the author of the Wikipedia entry she was relying on and asked him to confirm first hand that her interpretation was incorrect, she characterized it as an attack - but I was surprised at @gmeast who Ive assumed was working in good faith.

It doesn't help that she was deleting my posts and then misrepresenting what I'd said.

I genuinely believe there's absolutely no face lost in conceding an error such as this. But his reaction is questionable.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4712 on: August 26, 2012, 09:25:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4713 on: August 26, 2012, 09:41:39 PM »
It's laughable, or would be if it weren't so boring.

The parrot in question still does not understand even the most basic facts about her circuit, reading schematics, the factors that determine impedance, the behaviour of mosfets, or what current is, what voltage is, what AC and DC mean. She still does not even acknowledge that a mosfet has a linear response operation region, nor does she understand the effects of inductance or capacitance on her circuit's measured voltages. Why...it it even seems as if she has not watched or understood any of the simple teaching demonstrations that I have made, explaining and illustrating some of these simple things in a manner that a bright ten year old child.... whose cup did not run over.... could understand.

I guess .99 is the only one who can see all the schematics and other images that are being presented over there. I am just going by the verbal descriptions of gmeast's apparatus and equipment. May we be shown HERE the actual schematic that he is using, and a scopeshot or two from his 12 MHz scope?

We get doggerel and spam here from the sock puppet Youknowwho,  but information is carefully omitted. Perhaps .99, as the only "agent" other than Youknowwho allowed to read and post in both places, will provide us with an image or two.



Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4714 on: August 26, 2012, 09:56:21 PM »
It would be nice, but as soon as he did, I imagine their TOS would be changed to include "posting the images elsewhere" as a criminal actionable offense.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4714 on: August 26, 2012, 09:56:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4715 on: August 26, 2012, 10:19:48 PM »
I sort if expected RA to act that way fairly quickly - when I went to the author of the Wikipedia entry she was relying on and asked him to confirm first hand that her interpretation was incorrect, she characterized it as an attack - but I was surprised at @gmeast who Ive assumed was working in good faith.

It doesn't help that she was deleting my posts and then misrepresenting what I'd said.

I genuinely believe there's absolutely no face lost in conceding an error such as this. But his reaction is questionable.
That bit about deletion/misrepresentation is a big part of what has gotten her banned from several forums in the past. It's part and parcel of the Ains-lie Syndrome, a particularly pernicious and virulent form of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

As far as conceding error or acknowledging what data really mean..... their conclusions precede their data, so any data that doesn't fit is either discarded, discounted, or ignored completely. They are working with the explicitly expressed intent of proving their conjectures! Not testing them! They are PROVING them. 

It's interesting that in some languages like German the terms "to test" and "to prove" have a closer meaning than they do in scientific explorations. But even in common English we distinguish between "to prove" and "to probe", cognates with the same root.

Just as in Ainslie's own data shown in the scopeshots, where the battery voltage can be seen to be declining by several tenths of volts over the course of a day's trials on several occasions..... if the data do not correspond to the predictions they are ignored. She claimed that there was no measurable decrease in the battery's charge and presented data at the same time that showed measured decrease, consistent, systematic and clear, in the battery's charge. The only way this can happen is that data is simply ignored when it does not fit the preconclusion.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4716 on: August 26, 2012, 11:31:09 PM »
It would be nice, but as soon as he did, I imagine their TOS would be changed to include "posting the images elsewhere" as a criminal actionable offense.

Nahh.... ever since he sent her his picture, she's got the severe hots for .99. Her knees quiver. I think she probably keeps it as a desktop background. He can do no wrong, and I'm sure she believes that he will eventually come to understand that the only possible explanation for her waveforms is the zipon, arriving twice as before as it went. The LeCroy does not lie!

(He is a lot better looking than I am, I'll happily concede that.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4716 on: August 26, 2012, 11:31:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4717 on: August 27, 2012, 12:19:58 AM »
You mean this desktop background image I found (by way of rifling) just now?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4718 on: August 27, 2012, 05:57:20 AM »
I too initally believed gmeast to be acting in good faith and to be a person of integrity, since he quickly identified the problem with the 555 timer published, and never corrected, by Ainslie so long ago in the Quantum magazine article.

But after this latest, I see that I was mistaken.  He resorts to the same kind of lying misrepresentation and claims without reference, the same kinds of self-contradiction, the same kinds of personal insults and innuendo as his mentor.

Quote
Up until now I didn't know what a 'TK' was. I thought it might be a tea pot manufacturer. So I searched for it and found TK's thread.  He/She/It suggested that I might be using clip leads for my circuit connects and also that I am in error using PWM percentages to define my power percentages.  I also believe there was also some crowing of some sort.  I also noticed after logging on to OU.com, I could not reply directly to this tread ... yes "tread".  Fine ... a bunch of school girls just listening to themselves.

Nobody except Ainslie is blocked from replying directly to this "tread", unless Stefan has blocked them for some reason of his own.

Now... just where have I suggested that gmeast is in error for using "PWM percentages to define his power percentages?" I'd like to see a link to the precise place I said that and just how I may have said it..... since I've carried out tutorials on just how to use digital oscilloscopes and their math functions including live realtime integration of instantaneous power curves to give total energy integrals.........

And surely gmeast knows that only people who are registered on that forum are allowed to see the images... unlike here, where all is revealed to everyone who is curious.

And I'm also wondering just where anyone insulted gmeast personally yet. But we can certainly start, if that's how he wants to play.
Even though he has now revealed himself as a bigoted, sexist, bloviating idiot liar who contradicts himself then whines about it later trying to change the meaning. 'NOT MORE THAN 0.8 VOLTS'.... well, if it was not more than, say 0.7 volts, or not more than 0.78 volts.... why not say that then?  Gmeast reported a voltage drop of 0.8 volts on his 24 volt battery supply, plain and simple, and now he's trying to weasel out of that report.
The facts remain:
Gmeast found that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article did not perform as claimed.
Gmeast is not using the circuit published by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not using an equivalent load to that used by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not operating at the same frequency as Ainslie.
And so on. In short, he has actually refuted Ainslie's claims in the Quantum article by NOT BEING ABLE to reproduce her effects using the published circuit, or even another circuit operating at the claimed duty cycle and frequency of the Quantum article. He has reported these facts and then he has proceeded to allow distortions of the interpretation of these facts to proceed unchecked. The Quantum circuit has no diode, no mosfet gate driver, and has a timer that produces a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load. This is not the circuit gmeast is testing or reporting on.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4718 on: August 27, 2012, 05:57:20 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4719 on: August 27, 2012, 02:30:19 PM »
I asked gmeast about his post TK, but Rose deleted it. I looked back at your posts here and could not find any reference to what he claimed you said.

Apparently, I'm not permitted to converse with gmeast unless it is to compliment him on his success, even though we are now being told it is not a "success" per se, but more a "work in progress".

Regarding his uploads, don't worry there's nothing to see really. The scope shots convey little, and there is no schematic as far as I recall.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4720 on: August 27, 2012, 08:45:13 PM »
@.99
Thanks for looking; I didn't think I had said anything like what he claimed wrt PWM power computation. He's probably gotten confused by some of the many absurd things RA herself has said about power computations, averaging, DC vs PWM vs AC, and so on.

Nice armour, by the way!

I hope it's holding up to the corrosive environment you have to deal with.

Is there any  news about when RA will be showing us how she makes that Paper 2, Figure 2 scopeshot?  These replications of her own work do not require special noninductive shunts or bypass caps on the batteries, they must be done with the exact apparatus used to make them the first time, of course! And so there should be no reason for delay in presenting these replications, that were promised to us many times, beginning months ago, even with specific days and times (By dinnertime, God willing) ....
These replications must of course be performed with intact mosfets wired as she has been claiming -- that is, according to the schematic in Paper 1-- , a full 6 battery stack at 73 volts or more, and a period of about 160 seconds, with 15-second gate HI duty cycle, with a positive 10-12 volts at the gate of Q1 but no current shown at all in the CVR during those gate HI times -- the key points to be addressed in her replication.

I'm also wondering how she intends to show that the mosfets are functioning properly before and after reproducing that scopeshot.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4720 on: August 27, 2012, 08:45:13 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4721 on: August 27, 2012, 09:18:43 PM »
Nice armour, by the way!

I hope it's obvious to everyone that this was just intended as a little humor... the only rifling I did was through the old thread to find .99's posted pic, and through google to find a suitable pic to paste it into. I mean no offense to Poynt99 by this and hope none is taken. I chose the armor because he is nothing less than knightly when it comes to the way he carries himself in these forums. If there was any confusion here, or if I offended you Poynt, I apologize.

polln8r

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4722 on: August 27, 2012, 11:20:04 PM »
No offense taken polln8r.
 
 8)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4723 on: August 28, 2012, 02:22:47 PM »
i just sourced a rare video of poynty... and man, can he cut some rug...
http://www.jibjab.com/view/RgR0sZ68vL9vlWzp?utm_campaign=URL+Copy&utm_medium=Share&utm_source=JibJab&cmpid=jj_url

sorry poynt, i'm sure you wanted to keep that hidden... :D

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4724 on: August 29, 2012, 06:47:15 AM »
Quote
175ml of water was heated 14.4C in 3 hours taking .9766867Watts to do that, but the heating circuit used only .43885Watts to do it.

Astounding. Gmeast can achieve precision to the tenth of a microWatt. Why, that is ten thousand times better than MOAC, which can measure to the milliWatt in good conditions-- and it is considered to be one of the world's most precise bulk calorimeters in civilian labs.

Either that.... or his numbers are wrong. After all, in the other part he is saying .43885 Watts is the actual value. A hundredth of a milliWatt precision, only 100 times better than MOAC can achieve after a week of stabilization and calibration.  Not .43884, or .43886, or even what I might say, "About 0.4 Watts". So if the actual value is NOT found to be 0.43885 Watts exactly.... his numbers are wrong.

Someone should remind this scientific researcher gmeast, experienced as he is, that the result of his computations cannot possibly be more precise than the LEAST PRECISE of his measurements. Sig digs and all that there neat stuff.

A tenth of a microWatt precision in the answer ... when the temperature rise is specified to the tenth of a degree C and the water quantity to the nearest milliLiter... if that.
I laugh in my coffee... all eight ounces of it.

 

OneLink