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: 524035
  • *Total Topics: 15601
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1479214 times)

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4875 on: September 20, 2012, 01:57:45 PM »
Open-Farce development

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4875 on: September 20, 2012, 01:57:45 PM »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4876 on: September 20, 2012, 02:16:44 PM »
I am certain it is the "Admin" login (Rose) that has been deleting posts other than the ones Greg deleted.

The "users online" viewing has been disabled for all regular members Glen. Same with PM's.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4877 on: September 21, 2012, 04:39:10 AM »
Well, there you have it then. Not content with being banned from all other forums, she decides to kill her own forum as well, by deleting the only posts and thread of significance, and blocking non-members and members alike from seeing the relevant stats. Meanwhile the two active posters seem to be both of them rather paranoid and excitable types.... I'm sure they are feeling right at home with Ainslie.

All those months of work, on my part with Tar Baby, on .99's part with sims and the careful patient explanations, poynt by gentle poynt.... picowatt's analyses, his slow boat from Singapore with his mosfets, Glen's reviews of past work, the efforts and comments of our "lurkers" and other contributors.... all of it down the tubes. Ainslie will just wait for the dust to settle, and then she'll pop up again in some other venue, lying about her "proof" of overunity and suckering another bunch of sincere and hopeful idiots into doing her work for her.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4877 on: September 21, 2012, 04:39:10 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4878 on: September 21, 2012, 04:56:21 AM »
Well, there you have it then. Not content with being banned from all other forums, she decides to kill her own forum as well, by deleting the only posts and thread of significance, and blocking non-members and members alike from seeing the relevant stats. Meanwhile the two active posters seem to be both of them rather paranoid and excitable types.... I'm sure they are feeling right at home with Ainslie.

All those months of work, on my part with Tar Baby, on .99's part with sims and the careful patient explanations, poynt by gentle poynt.... picowatt's analyses, his slow boat from Singapore with his mosfets, Glen's reviews of past work, the efforts and comments of our "lurkers" and other contributors.... all of it down the tubes. Ainslie will just wait for the dust to settle, and then she'll pop up again in some other venue, lying about her "proof" of overunity and suckering another bunch of sincere and hopeful idiots into doing her work for her.

You forgot to mention the "three readers of this thread". Oh, that was the other thread. ;]

Not all down the tubes. What you guys have done is pulled many of us out of the sinkhole we were sucked into. She is now isolated. No readers, and 1 member that is mostly posting about other technology and the other, he just might be Rose's long lost twin. They both lie, cheat, and, lie. lol  like they are connected in some way.

Hey, I cant see her ever being able to present anything here again. Nor some other places.

The word is out. ;] And the word is strong.

MaGs

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4879 on: September 21, 2012, 07:50:39 AM »
Howdy everyone,

FYI .... those that are not familiar with ( gmeast ) greg (?) here is a link to his YouTube video uploads.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gmeast?feature=watch   :o

A personal appearance .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwkaQFr_43A&feature=plcp  :-X

Someone should tell gmeast the accuracy of his USB interfaced laptop computer scope (20Mhz ?) compared to a Tektronix TDS 3054C or a DPO 3054 used on a high frequency DC pulsed circuit. [Ainslie COP>17 / COP>INFINITY]  ::)

FTC
 ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4879 on: September 21, 2012, 07:50:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4880 on: September 21, 2012, 11:28:24 PM »
Hearing things over and over and over and over...
Edited to substitute a link to the animated .gif
surprised I can make this change, after this much time.
http://imageshack.us/a/img21/9339/brokenrecordm.gif
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM by polln8r »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4881 on: September 22, 2012, 06:47:32 AM »
@.99

You might try poynting out to Ms NoCalculus that her "vi dt" reduces to V x Idt, since V is a constant in the INput case.

Perhaps the "public confession" of gmeast's error that she is thinking of is the one where he realized that you don't divide by three, you divide by four. But of course he never actually acknowledged that he did the exact error that Ainslie illustrated and acknowledged was an error, in your example.
Relevant images of posts attached below.... since the actual posts are missing.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4881 on: September 22, 2012, 06:47:32 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4882 on: September 22, 2012, 01:52:11 PM »
TK,

Yeah I am aware of those 'admissions', as ambiguous as they are. But ultimately he never admitted that the correct Pin is 10.5W for his circuit, and that is the bottom line. Rose agreed with and duplicated his erroneous computation, therefore she too is incorrect.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4883 on: September 22, 2012, 07:30:08 PM »
TK,

Yeah I am aware of those 'admissions', as ambiguous as they are. But ultimately he never admitted that the correct Pin is 10.5W for his circuit, and that is the bottom line. Rose agreed with and duplicated his erroneous computation, therefore she too is incorrect.

Yep, exactly, except that in the recent exchange I think Ainslie was actually illustrating the error, not actually making it in her replies to you. She got the right answer to your sample problem, and then also illustrated how it can be incorrectly calculated (using gmeast's method). Thus, she should be able to see that gmeast has done the same thing that she agrees is an error, in the imaged post above. But neither she nor gmeast have explicitly done so. They just removed the entire error-filled posts and gmeast blithely throws out the entire methodology without justification... other than that it gives him answers he doesn't like.

And I actually do not think that Ainslie can follow the math that gmeast used in the imaged post above, well enough to find the error.  You might be able to step her through it one tiny step at a time, but she manages to put a foot wrong even with tiny steps, so I dunno.

No, I never saw any admission or correction of his input power values either, just the admission that his "divide by three" version of a 25 percent duty cycle was wrong. I never saw him correct or acknowledge the major error of putting the duty cycle in twice, nor did he publicly correct the numbers he cited so publicly and enthusiastically. He would have to admit that his circuit is not overunity if he did that! Much better to remove the entire record of the issue and toss out the method entirely with the claim that it's invalid....
(It was valid as long as it produced OU results, though, wasn't it, gmeast and Ainslie.... it only became invalid when it showed that the circuit is NOT overunity in its performance.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4883 on: September 22, 2012, 07:30:08 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4884 on: September 22, 2012, 08:09:06 PM »
Ainslie said,
Quote
Poynty - I KNOW what you're getting to.  Who would NOT?  Here's the thing...

          5 Amps - 5 minutes
          0 Amps - 5 minutes
          ________________
          = 0.25 Amps per every 10 minutes.
<blockquote>

.99 said:
Quote

Correct Rose. You agree then that the average current is 0.25 Amperes. And you would also agree that the average current would be 0.125 Amperes if the switch was ON for 2.5 minutes, and OFF for 7.5 minutes, correct?


And I don't get this. How do you arrive at 0.25 amps as an average current here, if your input current is 5 amps at a duty cycle of 50 percent?

Ah... I see it now. It's another "mindreading" typo error from Ainslie.... she should have "0.5" amps where she has "5" amps. This is why LEADING ZEROS before a decimal point are indeed important. You read her mind successfully and realized she meant one-tenth of what she actually wrote. Silly me.... I just see what's actually written, and I see that 5 amps at a duty cycle of 50 percent gives me 2.5 amps average, not 0.25 amps.





</blockquote>

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4885 on: September 22, 2012, 08:33:24 PM »
Here, maybe this will help to explain to Ainslie just where gmeast's real error is, as well as illustrating that he never acknowledged nor corrected this major error.... he only corrected the minor one of using "3" instead of "4" to represent a 25 percent duty cycle in his (erroneous) second application of the duty cycle to his input average power value.

Of course, since he's thrown out the method altogether, he is now at odds with Ainslie herself, apparently, as well as the rest of reality.

This is a screenshot of his post, now vanished, where he first makes the erroneous calculation arriving at a small average input power to give a large OU result. My comments are in color, his statements and calculations are in black.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4885 on: September 22, 2012, 08:33:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4886 on: September 22, 2012, 09:10:10 PM »
Ah, how we complicate things and go astray.

You can have input _voltage_ and still have zero input _power_, because the power is determined by the current that the voltage is able to push through the circuit. This is where the improper mental models conflict with reality and cause the naive and inexperienced to wander blindly down deadend paths in darkness and despair, trying to get a zipon-powered overunity flashlight to turn on.

You are an humble grad student tasked with monitoring the input power to a black box. You have a voltmeter and an ammeter hooked up between the always-on, regulated power supply set to 10 volts, and the black box sitting over there on the lab bench. And you have a clipboard, a pencil, and a stopwatch. Since you are a very fast writer, you record V and I values once per second. And your record for the first ten seconds looks like this:

1   10 V   10 A
2   10 V   10 A
3   10 V   10 A
4   10 V   10 A
5   10 V   10 A
6   10 V     0 A
7   10 V     0 A
8   10 V     0 A
9   10 V     0 A
10 10 V     0 A

Got the picture, gmeast?  The average power is the average voltage times the average current. The average voltage is 10 volts -- the peak voltage times the duty cycle OF THE VOLTAGE, which is 100 percent,  and the average current is the peak current times the duty cycle OF THE CURRENT. When you compute the average power here, you do NOT then come back again and divide by 2 for the "duty cycle" of 50 percent.


Doing the problem EXACTLY as gmeast has done above, except using the current as given:

The Frequency  = 0.1 Hz (one pulse or full cycle in ten seconds is 0.1 cycle per second or 0.1 Hz)
V = 10 Volts
A = 10 Amps
Duty cycle  = 50 %

1/(2 x 0.1 Hz) = duration of a single pulse = 5 seconds
10 V x 10 A = 100 Watts per pulse
100 Watts per pulse x 5 seconds = 500 Watt-seconds per pulse

There are 0.1 pulses per second, so
(500 Watt-seconds/pulse) x (0.1 pulse/second) = 50 Watts.
In the latter calculation I have essentially added together all the identical packages of instantaneous power but they are spaced apart over time.

(Now.... do I stop here, or do I now divide AGAIN by 2, since I have a duty cycle of 50 percent? Gmeast proceeds to apply the duty cycle again, as I have shown in the image above.)

Since I have a duty cycle of 50 percent, my instincts tell me to divide again by 2, giving me an average input power of 25 Watts.


Which is of course wrong. But that's the way gmeast thinks it should be done, and even Ainslie knows better than that, I think.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4887 on: September 22, 2012, 10:01:32 PM »
Indeed.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4888 on: September 23, 2012, 12:31:13 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCxypoN8-xc

Note: at about 3:00 I say "fifteen hundred kiloHertz" when I actually should have said "fifteen hundred Hertz" or "one point five kiloHertz". The FG is set to 1.5 kHz for this stage of the demo.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4889 on: September 23, 2012, 02:30:42 PM »
Historical inspiration for the Rosemary Ainslie / GMEast dialogues.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-PEeX5xYY

 

OneLink