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: 83769
  • *Latest: MOKO PCB

  • *Total Posts: 519265
  • *Total Topics: 15467
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1436648 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4950 on: October 25, 2012, 07:20:37 AM »
I think there must be something wrong with Gmeast's reading comprehension.

Gmeast says:
Quote
A humorous aside: I spent a little time over at the TK kingdom on OverUnity.com.  Those guys are SO dedicated to the destruction of this technology it leads one to wonder of they have vested interests in Oil and Gas ... maybe even nuclear.  This TK character bashed my previous results saying that my "poor measurement techniques" resulted in a 20% error which is why I am claiming COP>1 performance.  I guarantee that if the circuit was showing a COP of 1.5 he would accuse me of a 50% error.  If it showed 2.0 he would accuse me of 100% error.  These characters are just determined that this technology can't work.  In one of TK's bashing sessions aimed at me, he asked me "...so when are you going to have the last laugh?".  Well I'm beginning to have it now.


Actually, I said THIS:

Quote
Using the methodology you describe, in combination with the false precision you often report, an error of 20 percent is well within the realm of possibility. Much more so than a real "overunity" result. In addition, as you would see if you had been paying attention to my demonstrations, the mere fact that you can dissipate more power in the load using a pulsed drive instead of a straight, load-resistance-determined DC drive, or conversely get the same apparent dissipated power in the load using apparently less input with a pulsed drive.... this mere fact is not so remarkable and can be reproduced much more easily than you are doing, and more dramatically as well, by lighting an ordinary tungsten filament incandescent light bulb twice as brightly as "normal", as I show by several different methods in some of my videos.

What I said is very different from what Gmeast seems to want to believe I said. But he is right about one thing: if he reported 200 percent overunity from a simple switched mosfet circuit... that somehow all the power supply designers and PWM motor controller designers somehow missed over all these years--- I would indeed suspect measurement errors and spend YEARS if necessary tracking them down. Gmeast is doing nothing to attempt to DISPROVE his own results. Measurement error still remains the most likely explanation and until it is RULED OUT by real control experiments carefully performed as I have suggested, the prudent investigator will not come to the conclusion that he has found overunity.

Not only that, when you DID report greater than COP 2 or more OU before.... you were wrong, weren't you. It was a calculation and conceptual error, and you should be grateful to us for insisting and pointing it out, because IF NOT FOR US, you'd still be using the duty cycle twice, and still dividing by THREE instead of FOUR, and thinking you had massive OU when you actually don't.

Don't believe me? Then please, Gmeast, write up your present results and submit them to ANY scientific journal.... any legitimate one that is, not Rossi's fake JNP.... and see what the response is. Note that I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO PUBLICISE YOUR RESULTS, in stark contrast to the accusations from Ainslie who accuses me of wanting to suppress you. PUBLISH !! If you think I am challenging you, wait until you encounter the questions and requirements of a real journal editor.
Come on, you have what you claim is a robust overunity result, repeatable and checkable. So PUBLISH IT, where it can be examined by impartial referees.

I've challenged you to validate your methodology by using it on a known (or presumed) non-OU system like an ordinary PWM controller alone driving the load, or one of my circuits. You don't want to do that, that is up to you. But to accuse me of the things you accuse me of is just wrong. I want you to do things properly and I've given you suggestions as to how to do that. You have not responded to the suggestions by denying their propriety, you have simply refused to validate your methodology. When the errors in your previous methodology were pointed out over and over until you finally got it, you stomped off like a chastened child, and changed your method... which new method resulted in a greatly reduced COP from what you believed you had before. You don't want to examine or test your present methodology because of what is likely to happen YET AGAIN: You will finally see the flaws, you will run and hide and seek another method or finally improve this one, and your COP will drop further, and of course you want to avoid that.

And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:

What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?

What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4950 on: October 25, 2012, 07:20:37 AM »

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4951 on: October 27, 2012, 04:22:51 AM »
I think there must be something wrong with Gmeast's reading comprehension.

Gmeast says:
Actually, I said THIS:

What I said is very different from what Gmeast seems to want to believe I said. But he is right about one thing: if he reported 200 percent overunity from a simple switched mosfet circuit... that somehow all the power supply designers and PWM motor controller designers somehow missed over all these years--- I would indeed suspect measurement errors and spend YEARS if necessary tracking them down. Gmeast is doing nothing to attempt to DISPROVE his own results. Measurement error still remains the most likely explanation and until it is RULED OUT by real control experiments carefully performed as I have suggested, the prudent investigator will not come to the conclusion that he has found overunity.

Not only that, when you DID report greater than COP 2 or more OU before.... you were wrong, weren't you. It was a calculation and conceptual error, and you should be grateful to us for insisting and pointing it out, because IF NOT FOR US, you'd still be using the duty cycle twice, and still dividing by THREE instead of FOUR, and thinking you had massive OU when you actually don't.

Don't believe me? Then please, Gmeast, write up your present results and submit them to ANY scientific journal.... any legitimate one that is, not Rossi's fake JNP.... and see what the response is. Note that I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO PUBLICISE YOUR RESULTS, in stark contrast to the accusations from Ainslie who accuses me of wanting to suppress you. PUBLISH !! If you think I am challenging you, wait until you encounter the questions and requirements of a real journal editor.
Come on, you have what you claim is a robust overunity result, repeatable and checkable. So PUBLISH IT, where it can be examined by impartial referees.

I've challenged you to validate your methodology by using it on a known (or presumed) non-OU system like an ordinary PWM controller alone driving the load, or one of my circuits. You don't want to do that, that is up to you. But to accuse me of the things you accuse me of is just wrong. I want you to do things properly and I've given you suggestions as to how to do that. You have not responded to the suggestions by denying their propriety, you have simply refused to validate your methodology. When the errors in your previous methodology were pointed out over and over until you finally got it, you stomped off like a chastened child, and changed your method... which new method resulted in a greatly reduced COP from what you believed you had before. You don't want to examine or test your present methodology because of what is likely to happen YET AGAIN: You will finally see the flaws, you will run and hide and seek another method or finally improve this one, and your COP will drop further, and of course you want to avoid that.

And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:

What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?

What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.



Hi TK and all,


Would you please stop. The COP>2 report I made was long ago and admittedly in error as I have already acceded to your demand to admit I'm a dumb ass.... OK?  Now that's over, I'm carrying on with characterizing my circuit variant.  I have identified several interesting anomalies that  need examining.  The SIMPLE graphing technique I'm employing is far more accurate for this type of work.  There is no interpreting scope readings or hoping that a dumb DVM can correctly average sharp transients.  I'm drawing down a battery, plotting the voltage vs. time of a standard (precision power resistor) AND of the RL & Circuit and plotting THOSE results as well, then following with a fresh calibration of RL vs Differential Temperature at Equilibrium.  The analysis is simply comparing the plots, their slopes and that's it.


Now get off my case.  I don't have the sort of ego that you obviously do.  I don't NEED to "PUBLISH" anything ... not now.  In the meantime, I won't be posting any results here.


On Bryan Little: I have isolated and insulated myself from all of that to the point that I have NOT read a single word on the subject.  I didn't even read what you wrote above.  I don't care about any of that. I almost don't care that YOU have ripped me so many times ... I just don't give a crap! I care ONLY about this technology that I only recently became aware of through the various internet threads about Rosie's circuit.  I simply am not going to give anyone the satisfaction of participating in the character assassination of, from or about ANY camp ... true or false, warranted or not, malicious or otherwise.


GET IT? Regards,


Greg

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4952 on: October 27, 2012, 04:26:12 AM »
And you also want to avoid answering the direct question I asked you at the end of my post, so I'll ask it again:

What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?

What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?

And another question: Do you share Ainslie's mad delusion that I am someone named Bryan Little? Every time she calls me "little TK" or insults this Bryan Little, she is sticking her foot further down her mendacious throat, and I laugh all the harder at this pitiful, deluded and ineffectual, arrogant lying old crone.
i'd say it wasn't answered because your question is an irrelevant red herring... ::)

do you ever make a post without engaging in at least one logical fallacy?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4952 on: October 27, 2012, 04:26:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4953 on: October 27, 2012, 04:48:53 AM »
i'd say it wasn't answered because your question is an irrelevant red herring... ::)

do you ever make a post without engaging in at least one logical fallacy?


WilbyInebriated,


Thank you. Regards,


Greg





Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4954 on: October 27, 2012, 10:26:28 AM »



Hi TK and all,


Would you please stop. The COP>2 report I made was long ago and admittedly in error as I have already acceded to your demand to admit I'm a dumb ass.... OK?
Where exactly did I ever demand that you admit that you are a dumb ass? Reference please. What I HAVE asked you for is an actual acknowledgement that you understand the actual errors you made and won't make them in the future. You have not "admitted" that, beyond your acknowledgement that your "instincts" about dividing by three instead of four for a duty cycle of 25 percent was wrong. But you have not acknowledged the more basic error of using the duty cycle twice in your computations, which should have stood out to you like a sore thumb but somehow did not. So I for one am not convinced that you realize this error yet. Meanwhile your insinuation that I want you to admit that you are a dumb ass is a really dumbass thing to say, since I never said anything like that. But if you like, I will start.

Quote
Now that's over, I'm carrying on with characterizing my circuit variant.  I have identified several interesting anomalies that  need examining.  The SIMPLE graphing technique I'm employing is far more accurate for this type of work.  There is no interpreting scope readings or hoping that a dumb DVM can correctly average sharp transients.  I'm drawing down a battery, plotting the voltage vs. time of a standard (precision power resistor) AND of the RL & Circuit and plotting THOSE results as well, then following with a fresh calibration of RL vs Differential Temperature at Equilibrium.  The analysis is simply comparing the plots, their slopes and that's it.
The methodology you have chosen is flawed and could easily be improved. You frequently cite precision in your results that is far beyond the capability of your instruments and observations, and you have not validated your methodology by using it on a known, non-OU system to obtain correct results checked by a different methodology. You can believe this or not, but it is coming from someone who has a LOT more experience in these matters than you do.

Quote

Now get off my case.  I don't have the sort of ego that you obviously do.  I don't NEED to "PUBLISH" anything ... not now.  In the meantime, I won't be posting any results here.
You are really funny. You post results here, describe what you are doing and then continue to say that you won't. You won't be publishing anything in any real journal and we both know that, and it won't be because you don't NEED to, it will be because you don't have anything of interest to publish, anywhere but on Ainslie's vanity honey-trap blog forum. And my "ego" is of such a sort that I use an alias and keep my own personal identity private.... unlike some others I could mention, who want their actual names associated with their doings.
Quote
On Bryan Little: I have isolated and insulated myself from all of that to the point that I have NOT read a single word on the subject.  I didn't even read what you wrote above.  I don't care about any of that. I almost don't care that YOU have ripped me so many times ... I just don't give a crap! I care ONLY about this technology that I only recently became aware of through the various internet threads about Rosie's circuit.  I simply am not going to give anyone the satisfaction of participating in the character assassination of, from or about ANY camp ... true or false, warranted or not, malicious or otherwise.


GET IT? Regards,


Greg
Again, you say you won't at the same time that you do.   
Is my "ripping" of you the moral equivalent of calling someone--- someone Ainslie has incorrectly identified to boot--- a homosexual sociopathic misogynistic criminal psychopath, and accusing him of rifling computers and even instigating physical breakins? Where have I ever "ripped" you by insulting you personally and accusing you of things you haven't done, anyway? Don't you realize that by falsely accusing me of "ripping" you in the same manner as Ainslie does, you are actually engaging in the character assassination that you claim to avoid?

Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that your pet troll Wilby only attacks ME for what he thinks is a logical fallacy, but never bothers to address any of the logical fallacies and ridiculous claims and outright lies from Ainslie.... or you? He never seems to want to correct, for example, your false rephrasing and misrepresentations of what I actually say, nor does he complain about the (nearly empty) Ainslie camp's various claims without support, the conclusions incorrectly drawn from poorly obtained data, nor the egregious libels against people who ARENT EVEN INVOLVED like poor Bryan Little. But he'll snipe at me simply for asking your opinion and pointing out that you aren't answering my questions.

For your information, Gmeast, WilbyInebriated is the very exemplar of an internet troll. Years ago, when I was very much in the same position you are in now with regards to researching Ainslie's circuit and claims.... he deliberately lied to me, and tricked me into giving him a mailing address, by promising to send me a mosfet of the type he wanted me to use in an Ainslie experiment. He offered to send me this mosfet, promised to do so, obtained my mailing address.... then proceeded to mock me and call me a fool-- which I was, for sure, to trust him-- and has since admitted that he NEVER intended to send me anything at all. In short, he ran a game on me, tricked me by LYING TO ME, into revealing confidential information, which he will at some point no doubt try to use in some manner for his own purposes.  Nobody that I have ever encountered in all the years I've been using the Internet has ever done such an egregiously WRONG and tricky deed to me.... but it certainly taught me a lesson, about people in general, the internet in particular, and about WilbyInebriated specifically.

What would YOU, Gmeast, think of someone who engaged you in what seemed to be a rational discussion, got your address and other personal information through a false promise and a lie, and then mocked you for being so trusting and then followed you around for YEARS sniping at you? Well, that's how your hero WilbyInebriated behaves.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4954 on: October 27, 2012, 10:26:28 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4955 on: October 27, 2012, 02:33:06 PM »
Sir gmeast has not admitted any of his errors, in particular the one regarding how to compute INPUT power using the average battery voltage and current.

Therefore, we have to assume he still believes (as does Rosemary) that the battery voltage should be reduced by the duty cycle before computing Vavg x Iavg.  ::)

That is clearly incorrect.

And one other thing gmeast should realize, is the method I put forward DOES work. However, when working in a noisy environment with 1mV signal levels  :o , one experienced in the art SHOULD know that results will be variant. In addition, most DSO's exhibit DC offsets, and unless calibrated out before measurement, will of course skew any measurement involving magnitudes on the same order as the offset.

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4956 on: October 27, 2012, 03:32:53 PM »
Sir gmeast has not admitted any of his errors, in particular the one regarding how to compute INPUT power using the average battery voltage and current.

Therefore, we have to assume he still believes (as does Rosemary) that the battery voltage should be reduced by the duty cycle before computing Vavg x Iavg.  ::)

That is clearly incorrect.

And one other thing gmeast should realize, is the method I put forward DOES work. However, when working in a noisy environment with 1mV signal levels  :o , one experienced in the art SHOULD know that results will be variant. In addition, most DSO's exhibit DC offsets, and unless calibrated out before measurement, will of course skew any measurement involving magnitudes on the same order as the offset.


No poynty-head! Your method does NOT work and you have NO standard, accepted measurement method against which to verify your flawed technique.  You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple. And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form.  And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress? Your ego is enormous! As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble.  Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push. This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type.  You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s).  Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4956 on: October 27, 2012, 03:32:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4957 on: October 27, 2012, 03:33:39 PM »
And while we're on the topic, one also needs to realize that DSO's have a limited resolution, typically 8 bits. Working with signals down in the lower bit range of the scope is of course going to introduce measurement error.

And there is this nugget from Sir gmeast:
Quote
What's interesting is I used both the scope method and the poynty-head DVM method which ended up in utter disagreement ... THESE ARE NANO-SECOND TRANSIENTS, NOT SMOOTH ROTATING SINE WAVES FREQUENCIES!

This clearly demonstrates that he does not actually understand the methodology I put forward and that he did not perform the measurement correctly.

When performed correctly, the DMM method can out-perform any DSO.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4958 on: October 27, 2012, 03:47:48 PM »
You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple. And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form.  And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress? Your ego is enormous! As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble.  Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push. This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type.  You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s).  Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.
This is where our very own logic guru extraordinaire would normally chime in (if he was fair and equitable that is) and ever-so-politely point out your ginormous red herring.  ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4958 on: October 27, 2012, 03:47:48 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4959 on: October 28, 2012, 01:03:32 PM »

No poynty-head! Your method does NOT work and you have NO standard, accepted measurement method against which to verify your flawed technique.  You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple. And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form.  And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress? Your ego is enormous! As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble.  Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push. This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type.  You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s).  Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.

So you choose, as usual, not to refute any of my points, or .99's poynts, by PROVING US WRONG or addressing the various points in our comments. Instead you choose to flame and insult, engaging in the very same things you decry in others. You, GMEAST, have been manipulated by Ainslie's lies and delusional claims, and are wasting your time and money.
NOTHING WE HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT AINSLIE AND HER CIRCUIT HAS BEEN REFUTED BY YOU or anyone else.

You talk about having the "last laugh"..... Well we had the FIRST LAUGH when you started trying to "replicate" Ainslie's mendacious claims.... because you are talking to at least three people here on this thread who did the same thing you did, three and four years ago: we all built that earlier circuit and this circuit and found that Ainslie's claims were bogus, unsupported by her own data and unsupportable by any replicators who used her circuit as published. SHE LIED TO YOU over and over about her circuit and its performance. YOU WERE SUCKERED IN to your current project by her OUTRIGHT LIES. And all that you have been doing for months now is trying to save your own EGO, to save face, trying to find something, anything, to justify your tinkering with some wild derivative of Ainslie's bogus circuitry. But we've been telling you the truth, truths that would have saved you a lot of time and trouble had you researched them and believed them. Remember Ainslie's published 555 timer circuit?

And in another year or two, when you've finally realised that there is nothing happening other than poor measurement in your circuit, will you be laughing then? I will.

You cannot refute anything that I or .99 or MH or FTC have told you. So you don't..... you simply insult and flame, defending an indefensible position and making poor measurements and bad conclusions based on them.

There are plenty of people laughing, GMEAST: they are laughing at you and your heroine Rosemary Ainslie.

Who is going to point out GMEAST's red herring, his non-sequturs, his continual resorting to ad hominem argument, when he cannot muster facts to support his contentions? Not Wilby.... he always disappears whenever I remind him and the other viewers about the lying, tricky, trolling game he played on me back when I was a naive forum poster. But he'll be back, just like a cold sore blister.

The FIRST LAUGH:

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4960 on: October 28, 2012, 01:49:28 PM »

No poynty-head! Your method does NOT work and you have NO standard, accepted measurement method against which to verify your flawed technique.
On the contrary: .99 has researched his technique quite well and has published full descriptions of his methodology including comparisons with other methods. You are either tragically misinformed, or simply lying, like Ainslie does. If you do not think his method is valid IN SPITE OF THE VALIDATIONs that he and others have done, then it is up to YOU to provide evidence that it is not valid by showing that it gives incorrect results when used on a known system. You have not INVALIDATED his technique by doing this but more importantly you have NOT VALIDATED YOUR TECHNIQUE in any accepted manner at all.
Quote
You and TK should go get married ... you make the perfect couple.
As far as I am aware, .99 is a man, and so am I. I don't know about where YOU live, Gmeast, but same- s e x  marriages are not yet legal in Texas, and besides, he's much too young and handsome for me. So don't worry, Gmeast.... I won't interfere with your courting attempts. But I must admit: I am having trouble trying to figure out what a person's sexuality or preference or gender identification has to do with anything we are discussing here on this thread, except as an element of Ainslie's delusional system.... since SHE is the only one who has made any comments of that nature. But apparently you are also of the opinion that a person's sexual preferences determine whether or not they measure overunity on a switched mosfet.
Maybe YOU and AINSLIE should get married.... you make the perfect couple.
Quote
And TK, nothing you say merits a response in any form.

So you say, in your continual responses to me. Too bad your "form" is one of ad hominem argumentation and mud-slinging, rather than one of addressing the issues pointed out and, if you can, refuting them with facts and outside references and properly done demonstrations of your own. But you cannot, so you engage in the kinds of rhetoric that we see here, whining, insulting and abusive but never addressing the actual issues and points raised, like your double duty cycle mistakes and your false precision and utter reliance on numbers in boxes from digital instruments.
Quote
And poynty-head, what's your definition of acknowledging a mistake ... a 100 page dissertation recognizing YOU as the king of science and presented before Congress?
You could simply RE-WORK THE PROBLEM using your same input numbers and the correct computation and state the correct result. That would require a single post, shorter than many you've made lately. But you've not seen fit to do that, just as your mentor Ainslie has NEVER CORRECTED the egregious math errors that led her to hold her bogus conclusions in the first place. No, your "100 page dissertation" is something that YOUR EGO has manufactured, when all you really need to do to convince me and .99 that your understanding is now correct is to simply rework the same problem and correct your posted results. Simple, easy, and in fact it's been done FOR YOU several times.
Quote
Your ego is enormous!
And yet he and I both post under pseudonyms and need no official credit for our work. Ainslie though, and you, post under your real names, go back and edit and remove errors and mistakes to cover them up, and seek acknowledgement and reward from official sources for your "work" and your claims. That's "ego" for you. The points we make are factual and you cannot refute them so you descend into these ad-hominem arguments. That is a classic expression of an EGO DEFENSE MECHANISM and shows that you, GMEAST, GREG, are severely invested from an ego viewpoint in this project. I can simply walk away from it whenever I like and let you and Wilby have your trollfest insulting me, certain in the knowledge that you cannot and will not refute me with facts, and certain in the knowledge that you will eventually give up your wasted efforts and move on to something else. Who knows.... when you've accumulated as much experience with your Ainslie circuit variants as Fuzzy or .99 or I have with ours, you too might decide that Ainslie is a mendacious manipulator and that you have been a victim of that vampirish prevaricator as well. Go ahead and laugh then.
Quote
As I said before, I am having the last laugh, and so are some of the people following this thread and seeing how easy it is to get you two to waste so much time typing all of your babble. 
Really? Does it take a lot more time to TYPE this "babble"..... than it does to read it? But really.... are you admitting here that you are deliberately "getting" us to waste our time by punching our buttons? It certainly seems that way. Where is a corresponding post from any of us, deliberately insulting and trying to get a "rise" from YOU? Don't we always deal with specific points, with facts and references, with defenses against the libels that you and Ainslie sling at us? Isn't your admission rather a DEFINITION of trolling behaviour? Of course it is.
Quote
Do either of you have real jobs? Your buttons are SO EASY to push.
Personally, I'm semi-retired and I do spend a lot of time at the computer, doing various things. Often, while I'm processing an advanced astrophotograph on one desktop, I'll look in on a forum thread on another desktop and make a response. When I see a troll trying deliberately to "push my buttons" rather than engage in a real dialog by addressing the points made and either acknowledging them or refuting them.... then I have to agree:
Quote
This thread is not a scientific forum, it's a social forum of the worst defaming, character assassinating type.
And let's go back in the history to see who is the most egregious character assassin, liar, and defamer: it is Rosemary Ainslie, and I have a burgeoning database full of her insults, lies, attacks on character and so on to prove it. Who has threatened to reveal personal information, and has in fact done so? Who is so deluded and off-base that she even persists in insulting and attacking someone who probably isn't even aware that she exists? This thread in this forum has actually been called, by external observers, one of the best and most scientific explorations that has been seen here, and it would be a lot purer in that regard if YOU, Gmeast, and ROSEMARY AINSLIE, could actually discuss and address the actual points made and either refute them with facts and references or acknowledge their correctness. But that is not what happens. Just look back through the thread and compare/contrast. We point out errors and you lot come back with insults. We defend against the insults and support ALL of our counter-attacks with REFERENCES that show our correctness.
Quote
You both act as children pouting and stomping your feet because either you're not getting your way or someone is disagreeing with you view(s).  Misery loves company. It is comical entertainment at its best. Done.
But Gmeast.... it is YOU who are behaving like that, not us. YOU have been demonstrated objectively to be wrong in your approach, your measurements, your calculations, your conclusions, and your style of discussing, so it is YOU who are pouting (removing your data and posts), stomping your feet (editing away your errors without explanation, removing posts from other people, making posts like your latest ones here) and holding your breath until you are blue in the face (withholding data, refusing to support your methodology by verification, etc.) When someone disagrees with .99 or with me, they are welcome to refute us with facts and references, demonstrations and experiments. But they do not. However when WE disagree with YOU, we provide those things, over and over. My video channel on YT contains literally DOZENS of calmly reasoned, carefully constructed solid REFUTATIONS of various ridiculous claims that Ainslie has made concerning these circuits. All that you and she have presented in return is.... foot stomping and pouting and insults, like you've done above.

Comical entertainment at best? Right, and you are the comedian.
But when Ainslie decides to attempt publication of papers filled with lies and misrepresentations and bad measurements, and applies for three different monetary awards based on her mendacious and discredited and disPROVEN claims, then it's actually not comedy any more, it's attempted fraud, and scientific (or in this case pseudoscientific) misconduct of a serious nature. And you are participating in that fraud by perpetrating her errors and faulty conclusions based on them.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4960 on: October 28, 2012, 01:49:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5814
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4961 on: October 28, 2012, 05:47:03 PM »

WilbyInebriated,


Thank you. Regards,


Greg

Hey GM

Here you are thanking the devil himself.  He comes to her aid very well knowing that her circuit(s) do not produce the results she claims. He is all about the lies she produces, the negativity and flying spaghetti monsters. Read some of his post in the "probality of God" thread.  Theres some comic relief for ya.

What is funny is Rose implies the help of God many times. Yet her verbiage and intent comes from quite a lower level.  Wilby defends her, and never comes down on her for using God in her posts. The reason why is he knows that she just 'uses' Gods name to further her lies and deceit. Join the club?

Go ahead an look in that thread to see what the great Wilbert posts when someone even mentions God in a positive way.  Just simply nashing. Yet Rose the liar gets a free pass. Because he knows she is just using Gods name for cover of her evil doings.

From your posts, I see you have learned a lot from Rose. Soon you will be just meat with eyes as she loads you up with fallacy.

You use her same attacks without actual cause, so you must be a believer in all she says.

Your posts here. What is the purpose of them?  Calling names? Trying to make these guys look bad?

I used to be in your shoes, as I said before. You are ignoring the 'truth' and falling for lies and detriment.

Instead of coming over and proving that Poynts methods are wrong, you just come for name calling and silliness.  You have no grounds for any of it other than you following Rose down a path of foolishness.

One day hopefully you will figure it out. Hopefully. ;]


Mags

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4962 on: October 28, 2012, 06:28:54 PM »
I think a Rosemary circuit must be transmitting a waveform that induces delusional
behavior in susceptible people that suffer from an acute lack of common sense.

There seems to be no other rational reason for anyone to believe Rosemary circuit
can do what she claims, given the last 10 years of overwhelming evidence against it.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4963 on: October 28, 2012, 06:53:36 PM »
Wait until Gmeast receives this promised email list of all of my and .99's "errors". I wonder if he'll have to wait as long as I've been waiting for the promised transcripts and refutations of my videos, or as long as we've been waiting for her to refute us by reproducing those scopeshots showing the blown or miswired mosfets.

Meanwhile, the deluded idiot continues her libels against "poor little" Bryan Little, in her continuing fantasy that she has figured out who I am. When she discovers, finally, that she has been utterly and foolishly wrong about this, all this time, from the very first time she ever called me "little".... I expect her to simply brush it under the rug like she always does when she's been proven wrong about various absurd things she's said. Like the equinox (or solstice) coming in July, for example, or "PER" not indicating division, or "no such animal" as inductive reactance, or a dozen other absurdities from Ainslie.

Like the present case where she accuses me, or Bryan, or someone, of "seriously proposed to calculate energy without any reference to frequency", and where she accuses .99 of claiming a battery can "deliver a negative current". This, coming from a person who failed math in grade school and doesn't even know or understand what the "dt" in her vaunted "VI dt" parroting actually means.  Where are the references for these ridiculous claims that Ainslie makes against us? They do not exist, because she doesn't even understand what she's talking about and continually gets her concepts and terms muddled.  The problem is that she then draws conclusions based on her false, muddled misconceptions and misquotes, and when the misconceptions are corrected.... the conclusions aren't. In short, Ainslie is a liar, a fool, and an arrogant idiot, and her forum is full of posts like the one below that PROVE beyond doubt, in her own words, that what I say here is true.

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4964 on: October 29, 2012, 03:03:59 AM »
Hi all,


Thanks for the attention.  Admittedly, my variation on Rosie's circuit does not, or perhaps can not operate at COP>17 (or whatever).  As I have admitted, I got very caught up in the excitement of it all and made some analytical errors, but you can't let it go at that.  Fine, that's your problem.  Rosie won't share her current evidence or test results with me supporting COP>1. So I'm not on her 'inner circle' or on her 'team' like you all might think.  I have only what I'm presently testing and I'm encouraged by what I personally see, not by what I'm told.  And that means I'm beholding to NO ONE.  It is so easy to clump together like you guys do and argue why something 'won't or can't work'.  That is a far easier cowardly task than exploring why something 'will or can work'.


My enthusiasm for this has not diminished in the least. 


Question: Why are you guys NOT attacking every other OU endeavor  presented on the many forums here on overunity.com?


Oh ... and YES, those delusional energy waves given off by my circuit are quite addicting. That's why I enjoy working on it so much.


Regards

 

OneLink