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 Posts: 893858
  • *Total Topics: 15705
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1525556 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4770 on: September 04, 2012, 06:48:03 PM »
Hey, .99...
Did Ainslie ever bother to tell you what those mystery special resistors are, that were sent to her by her USA laboratory that confirmed that her batteries DO discharge, using her own exact apparatus?
No, unfortunately she skirted around that question.

I'd like to know why she is asking me these technical questions though, when she clearly rejects everything I have to say. I've advised her to ask her collaborators and experts to explain these things. After all, if they are indeed experts etc. why ask me? ???

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4770 on: September 04, 2012, 06:48:03 PM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4771 on: September 04, 2012, 08:51:18 PM »
Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency.

And as far as her "experts" go.... I'm sure that when she starts arguing with them about her "45 ohms of inductive capacitance" they nod sagely, drink up, check their watches and flee, late for their next appointments.

She has just been toying with you all this time, only pretending to understand and pretending to see your poynts. She thinks she's backed you into a corner... when really she's still at Square One, and has made zero progress in understanding anything at all. Her most recent posts seem to indicate that she is still confused about the phase relationship between voltage and current in an AC circuit! And I'd bet that she is still also confused about the relationship between the mosfet Drain voltage and the applied gate signal in her circuit, as well as still not realizing or acknowledging that the mosfets have a linear operation range where they do not act as a simple switch. She certainly doesn't understand how amplifiers can produce feedback oscillations.

In short.... we have been arguing with a madwoman, who neither understands nor cares what "team classical" has to say, who simply ignores facts, and who is so arrogant that she will not humble herself to take instruction from anyone. There are no collaborators left and she consults with no experts.... as the recent capacitor purchase indicates.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4772 on: September 05, 2012, 12:10:19 AM »
Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency.

And as far as her "experts" go.... I'm sure that when she starts arguing with them about her "45 ohms of inductive capacitance" they nod sagely, drink up, check their watches and flee, late for their next appointments.

"Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency."

Thats for certain. I wonder if GM agrees with that terminology?  Or anyone on her site? :o But your right, she is all alone in this, saddly, or there would be at least a small percentage of what she says that could be found in books, but just about none of it is. I wonder who created her circuits for her?

As for the mosfets being switches, they can be, transistors also, just at lower freq. But in her case, the sig gen just turns on and off the oscillation, and the oscillation happening back and forth between the mosfets is not a square wave like a switch being turned on and off.

"45 ohms of inductive capacitance"

Lol  Where does she get this stuff? It must be in the book that shows how to detect and measure zippons with standard equipment. I havnt been able to find a copy of that book yet. Still looking. :o

MaGsy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4772 on: September 05, 2012, 12:10:19 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4773 on: September 05, 2012, 12:18:55 AM »
No, unfortunately she skirted around that question.

I'd like to know why she is asking me these technical questions though, when she clearly rejects everything I have to say. I've advised her to ask her collaborators and experts to explain these things. After all, if they are indeed experts etc. why ask me? ???

Absolutely.  They cant be all of her ineptitude. You have been doing an excellent job. ;]  You have exuded professionalism. ;]  Its a shame to say, but you have job security on this one, thats for sure. ;] 

The never ending ending.  ;D

Mags

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4774 on: September 05, 2012, 11:32:55 AM »
Hi all,

This is to funny, but a new member over there at Rosemary's personal blog/forum has a revaluation that if her experimental data is correct that it would prove Ed Leedskalnins (link) work.   :o

For several years now a "David Lambright" (link) has made some YouTube videos (link) of a device he has created, that was supposably duplicated by our Rosemary at Energetic Forum as "Witsend" in her thread postings and was trying to attach her zipnot THESIS too it.  I personally could never see any connection, maybe someone else can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMMFMz-ZUMg&list=UUGLr6nPVdiEdtit9AswkV8Q&index=60&feature=plcp   ( Rosemary Ainslie aka Witsend referenced @ 2:58 )  ???

FTC
 ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4774 on: September 05, 2012, 11:32:55 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4775 on: September 05, 2012, 06:57:33 PM »
I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.

Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4776 on: September 05, 2012, 08:17:33 PM »
I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.

Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.

This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my web site (link) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations.  ???

FTC
 ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4776 on: September 05, 2012, 08:17:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4777 on: September 05, 2012, 09:07:19 PM »
This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my web site (link) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations.  ???

FTC
 ;)

He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test.  First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.

So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4778 on: September 06, 2012, 09:34:43 AM »
He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test.  First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.

So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.

Hey Tk, I never thought of this kind of testing that you've outlined because of the possibility of actually catching the optical distortions for others to view being some have seen what's described in his video presentations. This does although sound good as a alternative method to do at least some testing and evaluation of his device.

Please note David's YouTube videos (link) shows fairly the same device in each one. It took me a while to wade through the blah, blah, blah postings of Rosemary's ( aka witsend ) as usual but I found her "replication" (  :o ) http://www.energeticforum.com/100788-post904.html  for her testing and evaluation .... but she claims not to be able to electromagnetically lock the tubes together.   :-X

FTC
 ;)


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4778 on: September 06, 2012, 09:34:43 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4779 on: September 06, 2012, 12:19:03 PM »
Hey Fuzz

The point of the testing I've outlined is to see if there really is an effect at all, or if it's just in David's imagination. After all.... the most sensitive instrument we know about to detect what he's describing is David himself, right? So if we suspect the reality of the effect, as I do, we should calibrate our instrument before we do anything else. Does it (he) really detect what it says on the box, and with what accuracy?
So an analysis under the Theory of Signal Detection fits the bill perfectly. If, under controlled conditions, even David can't reliably detect the effect, then there isn't any real need to go farther, is there? On the other hand, if the TSD analysis shows that there is even a slight ability to discriminate whether the effect-producing device is active or not.... then a deeper study is entirely justified, and you have something solid to justify it: real numbers from a blinded, objective test that shows the detectability of the phenomenon and also David's "bias"... his tendency to read "one side or the other of the needle" so to speak. I think you know what I mean. Both of these parameters fall out of the TSD score matrix.

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_5/ch5p1.html

Golly.... and RA actually tried to make one of these things? Doesn't really seem like a thing a woman would want to do.... although, now that I think about it, sawing off all those pipe pieces...... oh, never mind.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4780 on: September 07, 2012, 06:27:08 AM »
Incredible. The woman is swamped by her own delusions. There are so many lies and false conclusions in that mess of bloviated "refutation" that it's nearly impossible to believe that it came from an adult human being who can dress herself. (Presumably she can do that much, although we have no evidence of it.)

Here's just one of her silly claims:
Quote
The argument that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains is REFUTED. Because according to the measurements there should be NO loss of potential difference from the supply. Therefore the measurements are pointing at an anomaly that needs resolution.

But her own actual data of the measured battery voltage REFUTES her silly claim. And most of the rest are just as bad. Even the independent lab testing her own apparatus confirmed "that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains"... because the "measured gains" are no such thing... they are artefacts. The actual battery voltage data tells the tale.


On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a  mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series.

On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.

On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, less than 10 minutes later.

The scopeshots are available for inspection here:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/

In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts.

The next shots I can find are SCRN0361 and SCRN0362, both on May 8, both at 25.1 volts, and I think those might be the latest I have.

I am quoting the scope's computed means, always the highest of the three it gives (mean mean, high mean, low mean, fortune cookie extra).

In short, Ainslie's OWN DATA refute her silly claim that her silly claim has been refuted.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4780 on: September 07, 2012, 06:27:08 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4781 on: September 07, 2012, 06:41:21 AM »
Quote
1
We have continuing evidence of an alternate energy supply source in an electric circuit that cannot be explained within conventional physical paradigms.

[/color]FALSE. The measurements that led Ainslie to her specious conclusion were completely modelled in simulators several different times using conventional physical paradigms... about the actual nature of which, Ainslie has no clue. Simply by entering into the sims the physical parameters of the circuit, the exact waveforms and "negative mean power products" were obtained, entirely conventionally and in a completely understood manner, using conventional physical paradigms.

Quote
2
It is evident that a solid state switching device is well able to supply electric energy without any cost of energy from a conventional supply source.

[/color]FALSE. No such fact is in evidence at all. IN FACT, the independent laboratory testing Ainslie's very own apparatus confirmed what everybody else has also confirmed: the "conventional supply source" does in fact supply electrical energy to the load of her SS switching device.... and to all other such devices as well.

Quote
4
It is also evident that this is NOT due to measurement errors.


[/color]FALSE. The measurements that have been taken are in error NOT in the measurements themselves but rather in what they represent: the claimed current measurement is contaminated by spurious voltages induced by the circuit's wiring and the manner in which the measurements are taken. The battery voltage measurements also suffer from the same defect. All this has been modelled, explained, and fixes have been suggested... and applied by others but not by Ainslie. True measurements of the quantities necessary for accurate power measurements reveal the truth: the batteries do discharge, they do provide power to the load, and there is no gain in efficiency from the feedback oscillations.

Quote
5
The implications are that this energy supply source can supplement conventional grid supplies - and that with adequate development - should entirely replace the need for our utility suppliers.

[/color]FALSE. The implications are that the Ainslie team is incompetent and also refuses to acknowledge the true facts of the matter: they have made false conclusions based on a false "thesis" and have made amateurish mistakes in every stage of the process. There is no excess energy, therefore there is no hope of any "supplementing the grid". There is only a mass of Ainslie's self-delusion and mendacity.

Quote
6
It is also evident that this news is WIDELY resisted on competing forums based on spurious and irrelevant arguments.

[/color]"This news" is resisted WIDELY, by everyone who has encountered Ainslie sooner or later, because it's simply not true. And the arguments that have been put forth against it are not spurious or irrelevant, quite the contrary. They can be checked and confirmed by anyone who cares enough to do so. Ainslie's claims.... cannot.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4782 on: September 07, 2012, 05:04:19 PM »
What are your qualifications @ysw?


Last time you were here, you claimed you were a professional. How so? Just a list of your qualifications, that doesn't compromise your anonymity, does it?

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4783 on: September 07, 2012, 07:31:28 PM »
@All

What is interesting is what is not referenced.  This should put you in the picture better.

What I see is a trail of "SLIME" from a meal sent to us from the slug dame .... any one here what to have another bite of Rosemary's cooking ??

Go back under that rock with your idiot friends and collaborators ....

 :P

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4784 on: September 07, 2012, 11:07:36 PM »
@All

What is interesting is what is not referenced.  This should put you in the picture better.

On the contrary, your spam is not interesting, as it is a moldy rehash of Ainslie's mistaken and mendacious claims. As I have indicated in my post above WITH FACTS, the claims made are spurious and false.

What is interesting is that you also share the same characteristics as Ainslie herself: you lack the ability to reason correctly, you are ignorant of your topic, you refuse to educate yourself, you are uncritical of absurd claims without evidence, you are overweeningly arrogant and refuse to accept clear and irrefutable facts when they are presented to you, and you do not know how to, or choose not to, engage in a reasonable scientific discussion. You also deny the reality of data that does not fit your preconceived and incorrect "thesis" and you simply lie about what has been done and how it has been measured. In short, you are a typical sock puppet of Ainslie.

There is one thing for certain: You are not heating your home, or even making tea or oxtail soup, with anything like an Ainslie circuit. In fact.... you are still hooked up to the national grid, aren't you, instead of running off of your perpetually charged batteries.

 

OneLink