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: 524212
  • *Total Topics: 15608
  • *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 1481447 times)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4995 on: October 31, 2012, 04:19:47 AM »
Very cool. Same here just about. Yours looks like maybe a better build. Very nice and neat on the armature. Is that a fan motor?  This thing is so torquey. ;]  I see the casing is the magnet field return. Like it would not work so well if the casing were plastic.
Mine had 2 welds next to the mounting holes which I drilled. The mounting holes provide a good alignment to put it back together. Had a bit of white silicone as a case seal.

Was thinking to try mags on each sector on each side of the rotor then making my own U shaped paths for each pair, and make a casing out of plexi.

Honestly I have been looking at it for 2 days and I dont understand it. lol  The brush positions are at near 12 oclock and 2. I wonder if it is to make up for the missing portions of the magnet? ::) And the winding angles, a wire goes outward at an angle then bends at the edge and comes back in at the same angle if you were looking at that side of the plate. So maybe the 12 and 2 positions of the brushes mean that there are only some of the windings active at any certain time. Not like a typical DC motor where all coils are active at all times. Constant torque. But these seem to be constant and torquey too.  ;D

Thats interesting that not all the windings are in series but separate. I thinks. Im going to test it after this. Just thought about all this while posting here.

Remember the homopolar motor thread I described using wires outward to replace the copper disk? This reminds me of that a bit. ;]

Mags
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 05:56:37 AM by Magluvin »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4995 on: October 31, 2012, 04:19:47 AM »

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4996 on: October 31, 2012, 04:28:47 AM »
I can see what you say about no cog. Theres no core in the armature.  ;)

Mags

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4997 on: October 31, 2012, 05:02:14 AM »
Hmm. If we were to lock up the rotor to the motor casing, connect an led to the input wires then spin the motor as a whole, would the led light? Like the N machine. It has the ingredients I think. Still checking out the rotor connections.

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4997 on: October 31, 2012, 05:02:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4998 on: October 31, 2012, 05:53:10 AM »
Battery voltages, time, and.... TEMPERATURE. It is your measurements of temperature vs time and your interpretation of them that are now at issue, since you are choosing to ignore other electrical parameters. That's fine as long as you do proper calorimetry, which you are not yet doing.

Determining the actual wattage your load dissipates using time-temperature profiles can be done accurately with a bit more effort than your simple setup, and you've been told how to do it, and you can find essentially the same methods as we suggest, in other sources for amateur scientists and academic research as well.


And ... of course TEMPERATURE ... you idiot. There's nothing wrong with my interpretation of anything with regards to these tests.  Other electrical parameters are irrelevant.  Calorimetry is irrelevant. You simply are going to refuse to accept any evidence at all that just might provide some validity for this technology. 


I'm presently discussing these results with some seasoned researchers.  My initial visits opened my eyes to the realization that real scientists and researchers don't talk, act or react like you do. You are completely devoid of any of the professional qualities that define true scientists and researchers. You are a fraud.


Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research? 

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4999 on: October 31, 2012, 06:17:02 AM »

Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research?

This threads beginning is way past disproving of Roses claims.  This thread has discovered and 'shown' characteristics and details of functions, cause and effect, way beyond what Rose even 'claims' she knows. Yet she has zippons draining her batteries and is telling everyone the batteries are charging. Ive been looking for a good zippon detector. Maybe you can tell me where she got hers.  ;)   Can ya do that for me Zippy?

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4999 on: October 31, 2012, 06:17:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5000 on: October 31, 2012, 12:03:13 PM »
@TK


Thanks for the explanation. Use of a material that reacts more quickly such as oil would have been counter-intuitive to me - I'd have guessed that the less sensitive it was, the better on a sort of longer-runs-average-the-defects basis.


So for @gmeast's setup, to get results that were consistently misleading in the direction of COP >1, what are the likely causes? The only ones I can think of are:

1)  Inadvertent experimenters bias. Even at this stage, I don't doubt he's actually doing experiments and recording results in an honest way within the confirmatory restrictions he prefers. But looking at his overuse of decimal places, there's room for unconscious bias when setting up, taking measurements etc. etc.

2) The way the batteries are discharged during the "active" run leaves them with a misleading impression of the true remaining capacity. Are there any effects that could cause this and make his measurement of voltage and consequent derivation of capacity dubious?


S

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5001 on: October 31, 2012, 02:24:26 PM »
Very cool. Same here just about. Yours looks like maybe a better build. Very nice and neat on the armature. Is that a fan motor?  This thing is so torquey. ;]  I see the casing is the magnet field return. Like it would not work so well if the casing were plastic.
Mine had 2 welds next to the mounting holes which I drilled. The mounting holes provide a good alignment to put it back together. Had a bit of white silicone as a case seal.
Yes, radiator fan motor. Unfortunately I don't have these motors here with me now, just the pictures. I got them at Princess Auto, surplus, in Toronto and I think I remember that they were branded AC/Delco. Mine weren't welded together at all, just aligned by the dimples you can see, then sealed with silicone RTV. I resealed the one in the photo several times, you can see some of my blue silicone.
Quote

Was thinking to try mags on each sector on each side of the rotor then making my own U shaped paths for each pair, and make a casing out of plexi.
That's a good idea; it would probably improve the torque, although they seem to work pretty well already.
Quote

Honestly I have been looking at it for 2 days and I dont understand it. lol  The brush positions are at near 12 oclock and 2. I wonder if it is to make up for the missing portions of the magnet? ::) And the winding angles, a wire goes outward at an angle then bends at the edge and comes back in at the same angle if you were looking at that side of the plate. So maybe the 12 and 2 positions of the brushes mean that there are only some of the windings active at any certain time. Not like a typical DC motor where all coils are active at all times. Constant torque. But these seem to be constant and torquey too.  ;D
I couldn't figure out mine either, especially since the brushes are big enough to span several of the windings at the contact face on the armature. I wish I had it to look at now, but it's elsewhere.
Quote

Thats interesting that not all the windings are in series but separate. I thinks. Im going to test it after this. Just thought about all this while posting here.

Remember the homopolar motor thread I described using wires outward to replace the copper disk? This reminds me of that a bit. ;]

Mags
Tesla designed a homopolar variant that used a disk cut into spiral segments, similar to your radial wires but bent into a spiral form, more like your motor armature. Very interesting indeed.....  My motors came with a fairly large capacitor directly across the terminals, did yours?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5001 on: October 31, 2012, 02:24:26 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5002 on: October 31, 2012, 02:31:57 PM »

Hi picowatt,


Thanks for your suggestion.  I do, as you had noted, believe the batteries are necessary.  For the last two days I have been testing what (I think) you suggested above.  If you look at the last bunch of stuff I posted on Rosie's site, I show some discharge curves ... one for the batteries over a 6-1/2 hour period (light blue 200Ohm load)) and another is the circuit running the RL (purple curve).  The curves have substantially the same slope for much of the run.  This simply means that they are discharging the battery at the same rates, the slope is everything in this analysis.  The KNOWN power of the battery curve is 3.21Watts at the selected voltage data point.  But the circuit is producing 4.21Watts to maintain the equilibrium differential temperature of 34C as evidenced by the differential temperature calibration on RL that IMMEDIATELY followed the circuit test using a precision DC power supply.


As the second test of power consumption, I hooked the DC power supply up to the batteries through protection diodes at B(+) and B(-).  I ran the batteries down to the data point on the curves, 25.34V, and then adjusted the power supply to limit voltage and let the current float to whatever load is being put on the supply.  The battery voltage was maintained at 25.2V to 25.5V and the load on the power supply remained at 3.3Watts for more than 16 hours before the current began to climb (very slowly). This second test fully supported the first test.   I'm using two 12V 7Ah batteries in series for my 24V bank. I chose this size of battery so I could have a measurable discharge rate.  That has proven to be a valuable measure in my testing.  My testing suggests that there is something fundamentally sound about the technology.


Rosie used big batteries.  Her discharge rate was likely undetectable.  All I'm doing is exploring the possibility:  that for a given electrical wattage 'into' an inductive resistive heater, you can get a greater equivalent wattage 'out' in the form of HEAT.  THIS REQUIRES THE BATTERIES TO DISCHARGE! That's what this is all about.  Not your agenda or Rosie's agenda or anyone's agenda ... just pure, simple research.  NONE of my measurements are made with scopes or poynty-principles any longer, just battery voltages and time. I now have the results that suggest that something just might be valid here. 


Just get off of the HATE WAGON.  All kidding aside, there's obviously a collective intelligence here.  'HATE' is a poor, ineffective and wasteful way to channel it.


 Thanks picowatt for chiming in.  Regards,


GME



gmeast,

Why do you suppose the current began to rise at the end of your run with the supply connected to the batteries?

The hazard in using the batteries with this method, as opposed to trying a cap in place of them, is ensuring that the batteries have discharged below the supply voltage low enough to be off the diode conduction knees (using just a single diode in the positive leg will reduce the knee issue a bit). 

I would charge both batteries and allow time for them to acheive their rest voltage.  Connect the supply and carefully advance the voltage adjust on the supply until current flow begins to be observed and then back the voltage control off very slightly until zero current is observed.  Allow more time (with the supply still connected) for the batteries to rest from any voltage bump applied during the supply V set and readjust supply if necessary to ensure its voltage is set just below Vbatt at rest.  Connect the circuit and let it run.

As the circuit runs, the batteries will discharge slowly and at some point both the supply and batteries will be powering the circuit as the diode(s) in the supply leg(s) begin to conduct.  This will slow the battery discharge so additional run time will be required to discharge the batteries below the supply voltage setting.  At some point during the run, you should expect to see the current indication on the supply begin to increase.  Continue the run until the supply's indicated current reaches its maximum value and stabilizes.  Once a stable current value is reached, the observed current should be very close to that required to operate the circuit.

You could do a similar run with your fixed resistors in place of your circuit as a load to confirm this method.

Careful setting of the supply voltage to just below the battery rest voltage prior to the run will decrease the needed run time.  Alternately, you could temporarily disconnect the supply during a run to allow the batteries to discharge a bit and then reconnect the supply (without changing its settings) and allow the supply's indicated current to stabilize (up or down depending on the battery state).  You could also temporarily add an additional load (one of your fixed resistors) across the batteries to speed their discharge and reduce the required run time to acheive a stable current reading on the supply.   

What is the quiescent current of your PWM and driver circuit?

As for looking at your recent runs, only members over there can see those.  I have seen very little of your data, mainly just text.

Again, just food for thought,

PW


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5003 on: October 31, 2012, 02:55:20 PM »

And ... of course TEMPERATURE ... you idiot. There's nothing wrong with my interpretation of anything with regards to these tests.  Other electrical parameters are irrelevant.  Calorimetry is irrelevant. You simply are going to refuse to accept any evidence at all that just might provide some validity for this technology. 
Of course... I am supposed to read your mind, just like I am supposed to read Ainslie's mind when she leaves things out or mistypes or misspeaks. Of course TEMPERATURE, you idiot.
Yes, there is something greatly wrong with your interpretation. Anyone with real knowledge and ability in experimentation would see your MEASUREMENTS and your CONCLUSIONS FROM THEM and think, here's an error, BECAUSE the results are in conflict with what is already known and accepted. That is, overunity results are BY DEFAULT assumed to be in error, until and unless they are definitely proven not to be so. This is done by comparing different methods and arriving at the same results, and by proper calibration of instruments and proper experimental technique. Go ahead and take your protocols and measurements, and my suggestions (along with PW's of course), to any qualified third party with experience in researching electronic systems for energy efficiency and see what their opinion is, if you don't believe me.

Quote


I'm presently discussing these results with some seasoned researchers.  My initial visits opened my eyes to the realization that real scientists and researchers don't talk, act or react like you do. You are completely devoid of any of the professional qualities that define true scientists and researchers. You are a fraud.
No, I'm not a fraud, you are. I have earned the right and privilege to be called a scientist and have been judged competent by my real peers, and the calumnies that you cast here are meaningless, just like your "research". And I'll stand by everything I've said in this thread as being valid and scientific in approach, and I'm prepared to defend those points in a public discussion with you and as many of your "seasoned researchers" as you can muster.
But do be sure to take all of the information in this thread, and the information that you censored out of your threads, to your seasoned researchers so that they can know the FULL STORY. You can download my Ainslie database for them to look over if you like. You call me a fraud-- without evidence or references to support your accusations. Yet I have evidence to support mine: your math errors, your censorship, your false starts and your coverups, your lack of homework and your lack of familiarity with your topic. So now you are just being silly.

Quote
Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research?

Did you read this thread from the beginning? Did you read all the other threads where Ainslie has been cooperated with, replicated, found faulty, found to be a liar, and where she eventually got herself banned?

This thread was started to do something that nobody else seemed willing to do: build a duplicate of Ainslie's claimed NERD circuit and see what it actually does. That's why it's called "Testing the TK Tar Baby", and that's why I never referred to it as a replication UNTIL Ainslie herself acknowledged that it was. How could it not be, if it uses the same circuit as she claimed, the same component values and produces the same objective data? All of which it does, in spades.

And, just as I was able to do in 2009 with the claimed COP>17 circuit, with the help of .99 and MH and PicoWatt and some others, I was able to find what happened, where Ainslie's errors lie, what they mean and how they were produced, and what the correct story really is. Some of what I learned came from my hardware builds and measurements, but by far the most DISCREDITING AND DISPROVING of Ainslie's "research" came directly from her OWN DATA that she published herself: the 5 or six different circuit diagrams describing the same experimental apparatus, the cartoon in the second paper that even now doesn't correspond to the claimed circuit used; the scopeshots that show current drain when she claims there isn't any, the other scopeshots that DON'T show current drain when there definitely SHOULD be, indicating blown mosfets and totally invalidating both papers; the constant stream of lies and broken promises from Ainslie... all of which I have documented in my database and none of which was "rifled" in any way from Ainslie's computers, as she so often delusionally accuses.

You have helped in this, yourself, GMEAST. Your own work discredits and disproves Ainslie's claims rather soundly, and you've found out just why, too.

Why don't you report honestly what you DID find when you were working with something closer to the Quantum circuit and claims:
You found that the 555 timer did not work as Ainslie claimed, but rather as I explained long ago: inverted duty cycle.
You found that no significant load heating happened at a true ON duty cycle of 3.7 percent.
And you found that when the duty cycle that the original published circuit actually produced was used, 96 percent ON, that substantial load heating in line with Ainslie's data was observed.
And you found that, contrary to Ainslie's claim, the batteries did discharge while this heating occurred.
This didn't take you very long, so you abandoned that circuit, added a diode and a gate driver and some other stuff, you changed the operating frequency and duty cycle until you found some numbers of your own that you liked. That's fine... .but you really should not try to cover up what you DID find with regard to that Ainslie circuit that you started out trying to replicate. But you aren't getting anything like her COP>17 results are you.

The only reason YOU are being discussed AT ALL, gmeast, amateur fraudster and fool, is because of your attempted replication of Ainslie's circuit, which replication attempt showed that her work is so flawed it cannot even be called "work" in a real sense.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5003 on: October 31, 2012, 02:55:20 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5004 on: October 31, 2012, 03:09:15 PM »
@AlienSigns:
I see that Ainslie has referred you to her second "paper" for some theoretical grounding in her "thesis".

This of course is the daft manuscript that was rejected several times when she submitted it for publication, and finally she did manage to get it accepted for "publication" on Andrea Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog. The version that she referred you to, though, has been altered from that official publication on Rossi's blog in several ways. If you compare the schematics given in the two versions you will see that they differ in a subtle but very significant manner.
In addition, the cartoon illustrations in that paper, in all versions, which purport to describe the circuit's performance.... do not actually correspond to either of the given schematic diagrams; rather, they correspond to an earlier, misconception that Ainslie had when she believed that all mosfets were wired strictly in parallel as her advisors had suggested, when she was suffering from blowing the single mosfet version due to lack of proper heatsinking and too-high currents. The IRFPG50 has a maximum current and power dissipation rating that would have been exceeded by Ainslie's attempts to use 72 volts, a long duty cycle, and a total circuit resistance of around 14 Ohms with a single mosfet on a bit of aluminum channel, so the "5 parallel" mosfet solution with proper heatsinks was suggested to her by her advisors, but when she (or someone) wired up the board they got the mosfets backwards. Ainslie did not realize this when she drew her cartoon depicting the Q1 and Q2 mosfets in strict parallel. See below. The "explanation" is explaining some different arrangement of transistors than was actually used in ANY of Ainslie's experiments for which we have evidence. It cannot apply to the circuit claimed to have been used in the paper's experiment.

These are things that invalidate the papers, yet Ainslie doesn't seem to realize or care about their significance.

To decode Ainslie's contemptible idiosyncratic squiggles: the tops of both transistors are labelled "D" in her squiggle. The centers are labelled "G" and the bottoms are labelled "Q2 S" and "S Q1". And the little Zener symbol on the "legend" is labelled "BD" for Body Diode. Apparently Ainslie failed printing in school as well as math.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5005 on: November 01, 2012, 02:20:03 AM »
I think I got the wiring of the rotor figured out. Im going to draw it up when I figure out the exact sequence.

There are 23 windings and 23 brush connections. So if we start at 12 oclock, first winding goes outward, at an angle, then comes back in on the other side. Once we do this till it comes back to the starting point, there are 6 loops in series, but at that end, it passes up the first connection of the start winding because of the odd no. of windings and connections. ;] So it passes up 12 oclock and makes another round. I believe 4 times till the final wind is back to 2 oclock.   Well you get the idea.   Ill be mapping it out to see if all that is correct.  There might be some skipping as in after the first 6 winds, the next wind past 12 oclock, might not be the winding right after the start. Its times like these that an ohm meter can read beyond .1 ohm is a beautiful thing.. ;]  Also great for finding the shorted part on a supply leg without desoldering much. ;]

Mags





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5005 on: November 01, 2012, 02:20:03 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5006 on: November 01, 2012, 01:26:40 PM »
Thanks TK.

Rose's drawing makes a little more sense now that you've identified some of the items.

And by "making sense", I'm not inferring that her understanding of the way things are actually connected is correct.
;)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5007 on: November 01, 2012, 07:12:05 PM »
You are welcome.

I've been pointing this out for some time, but I guess because of her scrawled lettering it was hard to see just how discrepant these cartoons are, when compared to either the _claimed_ circuit or the _actual_ circuit used.

Of course we have no idea of the actual circuit used to make the measurements in the papers; the only circuit that we are sure about is the one shown in the demo video, since we have the actual photos of that device. Not the mendacious one shown by the presenter in the video, but the one ACTUALLY used on the apparatus.

But there is another, astounding discrepancy that has been noted before but is not getting the attention it deserves, because IT ALSO COMPLETELY INVALIDATES both daft manuscripts perpetrated by Ainslie.

I refer, of course, to the positioning of the Black output lead from her Function Generator.

In EVERY actual photograph of the apparatus, both the single mosfet version and the 5-mosfet version, the Black FG lead can clearly be seen to be hooked up to the circuit's common ground point along with the reference leads of all the oscilloscope probes.

Yet in the schematics in the papers, all versions in both papers ...... evidently drawn and published AFTER this was pointed out ...... these schematics all show the FG Black lead (marked " - " ) connected on the transistor side of the current viewing shunt resistor. Schematics published prior to the criticism she received about the FG lead placement in the video do not show the Black FG lead connection at all. Only AFTER it was determined that the placement of the FG Black lead on the common ground allowed a current path to bypass the CVR, did Ainslie claim that the lead was located correctly and only then did the "correct" schematics appear.

Yet it is perfectly plain in the Video Demo that the FG is not connected in this correct manner. And in photos of her single mosfet device, ditto.

There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the data collected for the reports were taken with the FG lead in the position indicated in the schematics; in fact lots of evidence indicate that they were not, and that Ainslie and her cohorts never even considered placing the Black lead correctly until AFTER the error was poynted out.

Ainslie continually refers people to these manuscripts as if they should contain something important or significant. They do not. But what they do contain is a mishmash of error, mendacity, ignorance, and fantastic delusion. The data is incorrectly gathered, improperly analysed, falsified, and the conclusions drawn are not even supported by the data they are based upon. These manuscripts need to be totally retracted, with explanations and apologies from the Ainslie "team" of NERDs. They are blots upon even the _pseudo_scientific landscape, and it is _this fact_ that is important and that must be addressed by Ainslie. If she wants credibility she MUST retract the current set of reports, since they are so full of error and mendacity and unjustified fantasy, and she MUST repeat the experiments correctly and publish her data properly. Or..... she should STFU and fade away.

It's amusing to see her continuing her attacks against Bryan Little. I'd really like to begin corresponding with him, to let him know how his good name is being libelled by the idiot ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie. Can anyone tell me just who this is and how I can contact him?

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5008 on: November 02, 2012, 04:06:29 AM »
You are welcome.

I've been pointing this out for some time, but I guess because of her scrawled lettering it .........................................................................................

It's amusing to see her continuing her attacks against Bryan Little. I'd really like to begin corresponding with him, to let him know how his good name is being libelled by the idiot ignoramus Rosemary Ainslie. Can anyone tell me just who this is and how I can contact him?


Hi TK,


I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person??????


GME

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5009 on: November 02, 2012, 04:13:14 AM »

Hi TK,


I'm intending absolutely NO disrespect here, but I was recently told that you and Bryan Little are one-in-the-same person? ??? ??


GME

Isnt it possible that you heard wrong? Or what you were told is wrong? ;)

Did you know that Rose is actually Barbara Streisand? :-*   

Mags

 

OneLink