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

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

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: 513373
  • *Total Topics: 15278
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1343621 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5055 on: November 06, 2012, 07:39:48 AM »
This one has taken quite a plot twist indeed.

Soon she will hold you responsible for nuking the whales.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5055 on: November 06, 2012, 07:39:48 AM »

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5772
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5056 on: November 06, 2012, 07:53:23 AM »
So let me get this straight. For the record.  ;)

A video, that Rose says she didnt upload, and claims Poynt stole it from her computer and he published it, but this video is on one of her youtube accounts?  :o

Any dates as to when that vid was put on youtube vs when she claimed the vid was stolen?  ;)   that might clear some things up.  ;)

Mags

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5057 on: November 06, 2012, 08:05:52 AM »
So let me get this straight. For the record.  ;)

A video, that Rose says she didnt upload, and claims Poynt stole it from her computer and he published it, but this video is on one of her youtube accounts?  :o

Any dates as to when that vid was put on youtube vs when she claimed the vid was stolen?  ;)   that might clear some things up.  ;)

Mags
The dates of the uploads are there on her channels. Just click the links above and you'll be able to see them all, review them for content and accuracy, and check the dates of upload.And today she claimed .99 "rifled" them from her stolen computer. I think it was some weeks ago that she claimed her home was burglarized and her computer stolen.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5057 on: November 06, 2012, 08:05:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5058 on: November 06, 2012, 08:11:11 AM »
to add...

"Dear Reader,

Just as a reminder to you all - there are six of us who unequivocally support the evidence of over unity as detailed in our papers - the links given hereunder.  Notwithstanding Byran Little (TK) et al's vociferous claims to the contrary there are NO errors in those papers.  There are MINOR errors in the published papers and they persist - despite our best efforts at notification of required corrections. 
Liar. None, not a SINGLE ONE of your alleged co-authors will now support you in your claims. "Unequivocally" should simply be "unvocally" because nobody but you, Ainslie, is speaking out "supporting" your claims of overunity. There are MANY errors in those daft manuscripts and I have pointed many of them out. The cartoon drawings in the second daft manuscript, for example, were drawn BEFORE Ainslie realized her wiring error and so do not correspond to ANY of the claimed or actually used schematics for the device. But one would have to be able to READ a schematic .... and to read Ainslie's idiosyncratic, egotistic scrawls.... in order to see that, and one would have to understand circuitry to be able to tell the significance of that HOWLING error... which means that the "explanation" given is an explanation of something that didn't exist at all: an apparatus wired differently than ANY we were shown and clearly different from that used in the reported apparatus.

Quote
Those results show proof of measurements that fly in the face of standard prediction. 

No they don't, you fool! How could a simulator have gotten the same measurements if that were true? You are sadly deficient in the thinking department if you fall for That lie from Ainslie. The measurements are fully predictable and completely explained, and they have nothing to do with any actual overunity performance. They are mostly _artefacts_ of the way the data were collected.

Quote
We have a measured negative wattage that is supported with the use of sophisticated and calibrated equipment. 


And so do I. In fact my measurements of that phenomenon occur in at least three different systems, and they are even better than your own because I actually show the decreasing energy integral right on the DSO screen: My Tar Baby replication of the NERD circuit, the .99-designed Altoid Battery-Less Pocket Negative Power Demonstrator, and my SassyClassE sstc. These measurements cannot be used to support a claim of overunity performance, as they are spurious results of trying to measure a harmonically rich oscillation with cheap, passive probes and ordinary current-sensing resistors, with inadequate low-pass filtering of the spurious induced voltages in the measuring resistor and other inductances.

Quote
Such a measurement defeats Gustav Kirchhoff's unity requirements and points to the evidence of an alternate energy supply source to the conventional supplies vested in the Higgs Boson.


You wouldn't know a Higgs Boson if you woke up next to one. And Kirchhoff is rolling in his grave, laughing at your faulty conclusions based on bad data.

Quote

These results were predicted in terms of a field model that proposes Dark Matter to be the actual material source of energy.


No they weren't. Ainslie's "model" is a mishmash of misconception, entirely divorced from reality, and is refuted daily by the very machine you are staring at right now. Electricity is UNDERSTOOD, far better than you believe, and computers are just one example of how well it is understood. The very existence of the electronic computer proves that Ainslie's "field model" is a pantload of horse hockey.

Quote
A broad brushstroke of that model is included in the second paper.  Links to both are given hereunder.


IF THIS WERE TRUE - IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF  OF THE THESIS THEN THIS IS THE SCOPE OF THAT POTENTIAL IN THE THESIS...

1 - we would be able to defeat gravity
2 - we would be able to generate electric energy at no cost at all
3 - applications would not pollute our atmosphere
4 - we would be able to both halt and REVERSE the effects of global warming


If pigs had wings and a pilot's license, they would be able to defeat gravity too, but you never will. None of your "thesis" is even remotely near being true at all.

Quote
WHAT IS STANDING BETWEEN THIS KNOWLEDGE AND ITS POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS ARE

1 - a dedicated reach by competing energy suppliers to eradicate all knowledge of this
2 - effected largely in their efforts to trash my name and the technology along with it


Nope. The "energy suppliers" don't know anything about you, Ainslie, and would just laugh at you if they did. And if you had any "technology" there's no way that it could or would be suppressed at all. Your name is being trashed because you are a proven liar, an arrogant ignorant fool, and you don't have the sense to shut up about your delusional "model" and your ridiculous "papers". 

Quote
These are the facts.  Consider - if you will - the cost of some 8 or so trolls - spending ENORMOUS efforts and time at this if - indeed - there were no truths in these claims of ours.  We are NONE OF US trying to patent - to solicit funds - nor even to claim a discovery. 


Stop right there. Facts? You are a stranger to them entirely. You did too try to patent your claim and you even went for some time claiming you "had a patent" on your "technology". In fact as you may recall, that was where I came in: when I discovered that you did NOT have a patent at all and were simply lying about that. You also applied for and attempted to claim no fewer than THREE Monetary prizes and awards for your "overunity" lie. You've tried to promote your "discovery" by attempting to get papers published, and by blogging and forum posting and your incessant trolling.  In addition.... you have no "we" at all. There is just you, Ainslie, just you. Yet Again, you've made a statement that is chock full of lies from start to end.

Quote
We are all entirely satisfied that the physics is incorporated in the standard model - with a small variation at best. We have done our best to bring this to the academic forum - but have failed.

This technology cannot survive the attack that is currently being launched.  Not only is this an abuse of open source - but it we are also now being shown the risk associated in ignoring this information - as shown in the devastation wrought by Super Storm Sandy.  I appeal to you all to ignore the manifold protestations by the trolls on OU.com and to pay heed to the simple reality of experimental evidence submitted  precisely as required through publication in an academic journal.


Your rejections haven't sunk in, have they. To be REJECTED in your submission to those academic journals means your "work" does not meet the standards of rigor required, your presentation is non-standard and severely flawed, and it's evident that you have no understanding of your topic. You can't even do a simple math problem, when every freshman physics student in the WORLD knows that calculus is a prerequisite for understanding even elementary physics concepts and problems. Your rejections are entirely deserved and indicate just what you don't want to admit: your "work" is bogus, from start to finish, through and through, and belongs in one place only: the recycling bin.

Quote
At the risk of sounding somewhat melodramatic - I believe our survival as a species depends on the advancement of this knowledge, which knowledge in no way belongs to anyone at all.  It is knowledge that was forged by our greats and belongs to EVERYONE.

Kindest regards
Rosie"

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2

At the risk of sounding "somewhat melodramatic".... Ainslie here once again shows her egotism and arrogance, her paranoid delusional system, and her amazing ignorance of reality.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3580
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5059 on: November 06, 2012, 02:18:47 PM »
Where was that posted orbut? I could not find it on her site.

Maybe she has deleted it?

Anyway, the youtube user "aetherevarising" clearly uploaded that video, not me. March 19, 2010 actually.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5059 on: November 06, 2012, 02:18:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5060 on: November 06, 2012, 07:45:39 PM »
Where was that posted orbut? I could not find it on her site.

Maybe she has deleted it?

Anyway, the youtube user "aetherevarising" clearly uploaded that video, not me. March 19, 2010 actually.

Yep... now the reasons for my taking screenshots of the problematic Ainslie posts become clear.

Ainslie has a long history of revising history; she will go back months or even years if allowed by the software, and edit posts that have already been responded to, deleting them entirely or substantially changing the meanings. She can make simple quotations "disappear" as above and deny she made them, but she cannot dispute a screenshot image unless she wants to accuse someone of graphics fakery in addition to her lying about what the image shows.
Unfortunately I was too late in this instance; I don't have a screenshot of that post.... but I'd sure like one.

Offline orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5061 on: November 06, 2012, 07:48:13 PM »
Yes, it seems to be gone. I found it in the 'troll spin'-thread.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5061 on: November 06, 2012, 07:48:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3580
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5062 on: November 06, 2012, 10:56:08 PM »
The ONLY simulations that have been able to replicate these results depend on the addition of copious wattage introduced via the switch from an alternate energy supply source.
No Rose, you are mistaken.

The FG in the one simulation of your exact circuit contributed no more than 3W when the negative power was on the order of -100W.

In the other two circuits I simulated that exhibited substantial negative power (my variation and the low power design), there is no FG present at all. Aside from the FG, there is no other possible "alternate energy supply source".

So in fact, THIS still stands:

"It means absolutely nothing in terms of proof that any of these circuits charge their batteries, or supply more heating energy in a load compared to what is supplied.

You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth Rosemary. The truth is that these measurements are erroneous and most certainly don't represent the actual power being used by the batteries. That I would bet my house on. Would you? No, I doubt very much you would."

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5063 on: November 06, 2012, 11:30:53 PM »

More of the same...


The perpetual assault on the open source energy research community continues...


Which means that standard assumptions and standard measurement protocols ERR - or there is an alternate energy supply source that has not - heretofore - been factored into the measurement of energy.  At its least this question requires a thorough appraisal.

Kindest regards
Rosie"

The illusion of choice in the quotation above fails to mention the evidentially proven third option:

The data set was collected and analysed by untrained and incompetent pseudoscientists. The data set provided as proof of claim in fact falsifies the conclusions at every key point. The data, and the conclusions based upon it, are spurious:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5063 on: November 06, 2012, 11:30:53 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3580
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5064 on: November 06, 2012, 11:37:12 PM »
The data set was collected and analysed by untrained and incompetent pseudoscientists. The data set provided as proof of claim in fact falsifies the conclusions at every key point. The data, and the conclusions based upon it, are spurious:

Indeed, the option 3 you presented is the correct one in this case.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5065 on: November 07, 2012, 12:48:57 AM »
Ainslie, you are so laughably wrong in all of those contentions that you do not even deserve the consideration of a detailed reply. Your after-the-fact rationalization of your cartoons is particularly telling and idiotic. Go ahead and hook all your mosfets in parallel. If they are properly laid out without long interconnecting leads there will be NO OSCILLATIONS. So are you going to claim that the long leads are necessary for overunity performance? What a mendacious and ignorant fool you are.

You cannot provide the raw data from your "experiments". Your scopeshots show traces that could only happen with blown or miswired or missing mosfets. You claim that some trials show no current flow from the battery when the scopeshots for those trials clearly DO show large current drains. The experiments AS SHOWN IN YOUR DEMO VIDEO and in every other confirmed sighting of your apparatus, even the single mosfet version,  were done with the Black FG lead hooked to the common circuit ground along with all scope references, but BOTH the conflicting circuit diagrams you mendaciously included in your daft manuscripts show it on the other side of the CVR. This fact alone invalidates ALL your data from the current viewing "shunt" as you erroneously call it. Your batteries UNQUESTIONABLY DO DISCHARGE over the course of several daily trials AS REFLECTED IN YOUR OWN DATA. You claim to have dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes in one, STILL "PUBLISHED" version of one of the manuscripts and removed that bogus claim without comment in another version. The only independent laboratory ever to see your actual apparatus tested it and reproduced your "negative power" measurements, and they also made correct measurements and told you how to do so, and they also found that the batteries DO DISCHARGE, refuting all your overunity claims. And the water "wasn't actually boiling; there were small bubbles" and the temperature was 64 degrees C, in contrast to the impression you try to give in your manuscripts "bringing water to boil"... when you did no such thing at all.

All of these problems completely invalidate the reports of the experiments. You cannot refute any of these problems that I note, because ANYONE can look at the manuscripts and scopeshots and your blog posts made ON THE DAYS OF THE ACTUAL TRIALS and see that I am completely correct. Your "work" is a bunch of bogosity, not even worthy of a tenth-grade science fair project, and the manuscripts are a total waste of everyone's time and MUST be retracted for the reasons I've given above, and many more. Psychologists and physicists around the world are using your case in their classrooms as an example of pathological pseudoscience at its very worst, albeit in a harmless form.

ETA: The screen shot below was taken in August of 2012. Evidently one of your co-authors is a little behind the times.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5065 on: November 07, 2012, 12:48:57 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5066 on: November 07, 2012, 01:10:07 AM »
Hey, FuzzyTomCat .... is that Donovan Martin, narrating the Demo Video that she "DID NOT UPLOAD" here?

Whoever he is, isn't it funny that he lies about the circuit at least twice , showing the old, single mosfet schematic on paper which doesn't even show the Black FG lead at all, and then telling everyone that all the mosfets are in parallel? I mean, since he's an electronics expert... isn't he?.... he must be lying, because the circuit board is right there in front of him and anyone can see by looking closely that the mosfets aren't all in parallel and that the schematic given doesn't correspond to the experimental setup at all.

0:23: "The circuit diagram before you (taptap) is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup; as you can see. (zooming closer) What we have is, um... Five mosfets in parallel...." and so on.

This is either deliberate mendacity (as Ainslie has apparently already claimed) or clear evidence of total incompetence, as even a casual inspection of the actual apparatus (as opposed to blurry screengrabs from a video) would have revealed the wiring "error" immediately... instead of a month later, full of Ainslie discussing the WRONG circuit in the old "locked" thread here.

So have you ever been able to get hold of Donny, er, Donovan Martin, to ask him about these rather, um.... severe discrepancies in his presentation?

If that is in fact him, of course.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp

Why was one battery removed for the "high heat" demonstration, leaving a 48 volt input supply, done without any explanation or even reference? I know why. It is because the Q1 mosfet would blow out from heat stress if given 72 or probably even 60 volts under the conditions shown. This is the very reason why the 4 additional mosfets, supposed to be in parallel with the first, were added in the first place. But since they aren't in parallel with Q1, the overheating problem persists and so their solution was to drop the input voltage, lessening the current flow and keeping that mosfet within its package limits, during the long fully ON duty cycle times required to obtain high heat in the load.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5772
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5067 on: November 07, 2012, 02:00:54 AM »
Rosesaidwhat said...

"IF THIS WERE TRUE - IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF  OF THE THESIS THEN THIS IS THE SCOPE OF THAT POTENTIAL IN THE THESIS..."

If this were true? YES!! Well some of it.  If it were true. :)   Sounds like you dont know 'if' its true here.

"IF THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF  OF THE THESIS "

But I thought you already had the evidence? Shown by who? So thus far, your 'thesis' is not made of proof shown by sufficient evidence?? Just if's. ::)

Ring around the Rosie.



MaGsY



Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5068 on: November 08, 2012, 06:25:59 AM »
Hey, FuzzyTomCat .... is that Donovan Martin, narrating the Demo Video that she "DID NOT UPLOAD" here?

Whoever he is, isn't it funny that he lies about the circuit at least twice , showing the old, single mosfet schematic on paper which doesn't even show the Black FG lead at all, and then telling everyone that all the mosfets are in parallel? I mean, since he's an electronics expert... isn't he?.... he must be lying, because the circuit board is right there in front of him and anyone can see by looking closely that the mosfets aren't all in parallel and that the schematic given doesn't correspond to the experimental setup at all.

0:23: "The circuit diagram before you (taptap) is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup; as you can see. (zooming closer) What we have is, um... Five mosfets in parallel...." and so on.

This is either deliberate mendacity (as Ainslie has apparently already claimed) or clear evidence of total incompetence, as even a casual inspection of the actual apparatus (as opposed to blurry screengrabs from a video) would have revealed the wiring "error" immediately... instead of a month later, full of Ainslie discussing the WRONG circuit in the old "locked" thread here.

So have you ever been able to get hold of Donny, er, Donovan Martin, to ask him about these rather, um.... severe discrepancies in his presentation?

If that is in fact him, of course.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc&feature=plcp

Why was one battery removed for the "high heat" demonstration, leaving a 48 volt input supply, done without any explanation or even reference? I know why. It is because the Q1 mosfet would blow out from heat stress if given 72 or probably even 60 volts under the conditions shown. This is the very reason why the 4 additional mosfets, supposed to be in parallel with the first, were added in the first place. But since they aren't in parallel with Q1, the overheating problem persists and so their solution was to drop the input voltage, lessening the current flow and keeping that mosfet within its package limits, during the long fully ON duty cycle times required to obtain high heat in the load.

Hi TK,

As far as I know Donovan Martin is not the person narrating that Demo Video, as from what I'm told is not a person of color .... the camera operator for the video though is a ......

Riaan Theron
Riaan1906@gmail.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron?feature=watch
http://za.linkedin.com/pub/riaan-theron/3a/a5a/82b
http://www.animationsa.org/community/press-releases/liezel/opinion-piece-riaan-theron-developing-your-own-style
http://www.youtube.com/user/riaantheron/feed
http://www.animationsa.org/users/sae-institute-cape-town
http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/3D_Animation
http://capetown.sae.edu/en-gb/course/5763/Animation
http://www.filmcrewcentral.com/profile/RiaanTheron

I'm sure the name rings a GONG as one of the authors on the last two rags that Rosemary submitted as some kind of scientific nick nack used for a door prop .... remember  ::)

Best,
Fuzzy
 ;)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5069 on: November 08, 2012, 06:08:12 PM »
Ah, thanks, Fuzzy. I know I remember hearing Ainslie refer to "Donny" at some point. I thought the narrator was he. Who, then, is responsible for the outright lies in the video that I have noted and quoted above? Why is the video still allowed to be posted, without any retraction of those manifest lies?
I know you don't know the answer, except that it's a result of Ainslie's own mendacity and disregard for truth and accuracy.



Meanwhile, the statements from the Red Queen of Trolls continue:

Quote
Errors of measurement may be tricky to prove.  Essentially one would need to factor in the complexities of reactance. BUT when we do so the problems persist.  We are left with the evidence of a negative wattage REGARDLESS of those factors.  And a negative wattage is the proof positive that there is EXTRA energy generated away from the supply.  At which point - any serious scientist would revisit his ASSUMPTIONS and try and find out what the hell is going on. 

But not so - if you belong to TEAM TROLL.  Here their scientific solution - strictly in line with the well rehearsed requirements of their Medieval Mind Set - is to scoff - deny - traduce - victimise ... in every possible way - ANYONE WHO PERSISTS IN CLAIMING THAT A NEGATIVE WATTAGE HAS PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE.  Well.  The sad news that this system of denial works.  And that is notwithstanding the dire need of all of mankind - to explore this evidence and its potentials.

Well. It seems Ainslie persists in claiming that "negative wattage is the proof positive that there is EXTRA energy generated away from the supply". Therefore she must agree that my two devices: Tar Baby, and the Altoid pocket demonstrator..... are PROVING POSITIVELY that I am generating extra energy away from the supply.... thus, my two devices are OVERUNITY devices, according to her criteria.

Since MY DEVICES are ready to go anywhere anytime, and they are self contained, and they can demonstrate this negative wattage using AINSLIE'S OWN EXACT "standard" MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, and can do it WITH OR WITHOUT BATTERIES, even........ surely even she must agree that Tar Baby and Altoid qualify, in spades, for the same OverUnity prizes that she tried to claim. Ainslie cannot demonstrate the validity of her claims of battery non-discharge or "no current flow" when there is current flow shown on her scopeshots, or a mosfet not turning on in the conditions shown in her scopeshots.... but I can substantiate EVERY claim I've made about Altoid and Tar Baby, and both Altoid and Tar Baby are complete, stand-alone systems that can be packed up and sent off for side by side testing against ANY OTHER DEVICE ANYWHERE, and most particularly the Ainslie NERD circuit.

Got that, AINSLIE?  Your Foot-In-Mouth statement is an acknowledgement that EVERY claim you made depends on your "negative wattage measurement", and since Tar Baby and Altoid make the same "negative wattage" when measured the same way as NERD..... well....

DO THE MATH (tm RA).

Note well what happens if AINSLIE now chooses to deny the "PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE" of Tar Baby's and Altoid's "NEGATIVE WATTAGE". She becomes an honorary member of what she calls so disparagingly her "Team Troll".

Somebody needs to invent a foot extractor and sell one to Rosemary Ainslie. How can she breathe at all, with her foot shoved so far down her own throat?

 

OneLink