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

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: 83679
  • *Latest: Mbonheur

  • *Total Posts: 515971
  • *Total Topics: 15381
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1406785 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5115 on: November 15, 2012, 11:38:51 PM »
Yethh, mawthter, right awayyyyyyy.....

But about those late paychecks..... really now, we are supposed to be yer Lerdship's "well-paid" minions, aren't we? You wouldn't want us lot to defect to the other side, where the payoff is supposed to be infinite.... would you? So come on, tell that lazy paymaster of yours to start cutting us some checks.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5115 on: November 15, 2012, 11:38:51 PM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5116 on: November 15, 2012, 11:43:37 PM »
"When I see omission of comments on my posts at OU.com I KNOW I've hit a home run."

This just might be another little dig..... if what gmeast says is true, that Ainslie/Krebs's "Brian Little" nemesis is a professional baseball player.
Too bad Maria Krebs herself... or Rose "Mary" Ainslie or whoever she claims to be this week.... is definitely playing in her local Little League and can't hope to compete with real players anywhere.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5117 on: November 16, 2012, 10:34:38 PM »
Do you see? It is just as I told you.

The ignorant lying troll Krebs-Ainslie makes words mean whatever she wants them to mean, not what the dictionary says they mean, and we are supposed to read her mind to try to sort out the boldfaced lies from the mere mendacious implications.

Only in the twisted mind of Ainslie nee Krebs could claiming "no measurable discharge" NOT mean claiming that "the batteries do not deplete".

And once again she repeats the lie about her measurements NOT finding any "depletion of potential", when I've clearly shown USING HER OWN MEASUREMENTS that that claim is false.


Quote
There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element. This was based on the fact that in all tests  and, notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as being anomalous.

ZERO DISCHARGE OF ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY. FACT. IN ALL TESTS.

Now she is claiming that THIS CLAIM is NOT a claim that the batteries do not deplete !! Just what planet is she from, anyway? Did the unhappy events in Joburg addle Ainslie-Krebs's brain so much that she no longer knows what words even MEAN?

Ah..... words mean whatever she wants them to mean, and will change from day to day.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5117 on: November 16, 2012, 10:34:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5118 on: November 16, 2012, 10:37:47 PM »
Oh... and before I forget.... Here's still more evidence for Ainslie's ignorance, her arrogance, and her idiocy: She misspells doggerel as "doggeral" on her forum, and when this was pointed out to her THE FIRST DAY of that thread.... she simply ignored her error and continues to make it.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5119 on: November 16, 2012, 10:47:51 PM »
From the Quantum paper. Is this not a claim that the batteries do not deplete? Or is it just a claim that they failed to measure the batteries depleting? Ainslie-Krebs has been reduced to making semantic maneuvers worthy of a two-dollar politician, attempting now to claim that she hasn't been claiming what she's been claiming, all along.

Would you like a fine net, or a coarse net, when you go fishing for eels?

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT BATTERY VOLTAGE REDUCTION .... if this is not a claim that the batteries did not deplete (significantly), then it must be a statement that THE MEASUREMENTS ARE IN ERROR, because if the measurements are correct (and the report is honest, which it is not) then the batteries must not have depleted, otherwise they would not have produced those measurements.

This is a clear claim, in Ainslie-Krebs's first and only _actual_ publication on this matter, that her batteries did not deplete "significantly" during the course of the experiment.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5119 on: November 16, 2012, 10:47:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5120 on: November 16, 2012, 10:58:29 PM »
Guys,

NOTA BENE our lexicographers have long thought that there are missing fundamental words, words that violate our standard grammatical protocols, and that can lead to free vocabulary.

AND also - notwithstanding little TKs attempt to use a spellchecker, which he is SAWELY unqualificated to do on that disgustipating thread of his, would end the tirrany of Big Dictionary.

He has not refuted our spelling, indeed he cannot. How else could he explain that measured Negative Verbiage at Scrabble?

And I can ensure everyone that I will be releasing everything through Open Sores after I've addressed my recent gmeast infection.

Dullest and Worst Retards as always

Rose


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5121 on: November 16, 2012, 11:01:53 PM »
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie

You might want to make a few corrections on THIS PAGE describing your "work", Maria. You have the wrong schematic up, YET AGAIN, showing the Q2x4 transistors on the RIGHT SIDE (that is, the WRONG side) as the "latest version" and you also have the Quantum, completely incorrect, schematic up as well.

Quote
The circuit here is designed to route energy back through the battery supply to ensure that it recharges the supply thereby conserving the charge of the batteries.

In other words, the batteries are recharged by the circuit and do not deplete. That is what it says!!

Ainslie has also lately claimed that she has NOT claimed that the batteries ARE RECHARGED by the circuit, in contradiction to the PESWiki page... and in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to this passage from the second daft manuscript, copied from her forum today:

Quote
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 and inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of CEMF. A reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enable the generation of a "burst oscillation" mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5121 on: November 16, 2012, 11:01:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5122 on: November 16, 2012, 11:29:51 PM »
Quote
Hi lickle TK - our little Bryan Little - our indomitable little Pickle - our 'ickle' chicken licken - all of 72 pickles tall.   Golly.  That's REALLY big.

Can someone please explain to this ignorant, overweeningly arrogant idiot lying troll Rosemary Ainslie just exactly what a fool she makes of herself when she posts things like this?

That is truly a statement worthy of Maria Krebs.

Here's your big pickle, Krebs. Where are you going to put it?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 05:58:27 AM by TinselKoala »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5123 on: November 17, 2012, 05:42:22 AM »
Quote
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

The first bolded statement of course refers to the batteries' rated capacity. The second bolded statement is a baldfaced lie, as shown by Ainslie's own data as presented in the scopeshots over the course of the reported experimental trials.

Quote
Guys - I have pointed this out elsewhere - but possibly need to do so again.  Our favourite 'ickle little pickle' - is trying his hand at semantics.  Bless him.  Somehow he manages to read the term recharge and discharge of a battery as 'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'. Not at all bad.  Not too shabby... considering.  I take it you know that he suffers from a genetically determined handicap, which restricts his intellect to that of your average farmyard goose.  Which is possibly why he answers to the name 'Chicken Licken'.  This is actually the name of that well known 'ickle little pickle' that he likes to flaunt.  Poor sod.  He's rather overstating things...  here and there.

You are really a piece of work, AINSLIE. You insult me without cause and worse than that, you cannot even support your insults with any factual references. Yet I show beyond possibility of doubt that YOU are a liar, an idiot, a fool, and a bad poet, with references and quotations and images and other support for all of my contentions. I prove that you are a liar, over and over, with quotations and references. You cannot "prove" in any way that I answer to "chicken licken" or that I "like to flaunt" anything at all. Nor can you support any contention that I "suffer from a genetically determined handicap" of any kind, you insulting liar. My goodness, your lawyers are going to love this stuff.

Ainslie forgets that the CAPITALISED PHRASE above is just what she says here, in these places and more:
Quote
Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.
Quote
the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply.
Quote
without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source.

Ainslie-Krebs is entangled in her lies. Some time ago she tried to say that she didn't claim that the batteries recharge. Then she tries to claim that she hasn't referred to battery capacity or performance. Then she tries to claim that she hasn't claimed that the batteries don't deplete. Now she apparently is trying to claim that she has not claimed NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY  when she herself says:
Quote
Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.
That last is of course a lie, as I have proven by showing her data properly all in one place, but also it DEFINITELY DOES CLAIM what she is now claiming it does not claim.

Seriously.... what is the matter with this woman? How can she contradict herself in the same paragraph, continue to lie about things that have been long shown to be false, and carry on with her overweening and incredibly insulting behaviour? I have never seen anything like it.  Her utter and abject hypocrisy is only exceeded by her total idiocy and transparent mendacity.

Quote
Now.  TK's entire thread related to this subject - relies on the fiction that our papers claim anything at all related to battery performance.  This is gross misrepresentation and I challenge him to show where, in our paper - this claim is made.

What an astounding and amazingly incredible fool she is. Literally in-credible, as in completely NON-credible.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5123 on: November 17, 2012, 05:42:22 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5124 on: November 17, 2012, 05:55:58 AM »
Ainslie asserts in her daft manuscript: "Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all."

Allow me to decode:
VOLTAGE is Potential Difference.
"ANY LOSS AT ALL" means no discharge, whatsoever.
ANY means...well, it means ANY.
"they" refers to the BATTERY SUPPLY.

Quote
Guys - I have pointed this out elsewhere - but possibly need to do so again.  Our favourite 'ickle little pickle' - is trying his hand at semantics.  Bless him.  Somehow he manages to read the term recharge and discharge of a battery as 'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'. Not at all bad.  Not too shabby... considering.  I take it you know that he suffers from a genetically determined handicap, which restricts his intellect to that of your average farmyard goose.  Which is possibly why he answers to the name 'Chicken Licken'.  This is actually the name of that well known 'ickle little pickle' that he likes to flaunt.  Poor sod.  He's rather overstating things...  here and there.

Not too shabby. She manages to refute herself, stick her foot further down her throat, libel me with insane insults and prove that she is arrogant beyond all imagining.... in one paragraph. Not too shabby at all. Considering.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5125 on: November 17, 2012, 07:56:54 AM »


What an astounding and amazingly incredible fool she is. Literally in-credible, as in completely NON-credible.

It would be better for her to just keep talking chicken licken and pickle stories than to even mention her papers, circuit or batteries.  Not that any of it is good. ;) Just one is better than the worst. ;D

Mags


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5125 on: November 17, 2012, 07:56:54 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5126 on: November 17, 2012, 09:23:44 AM »
Spamming troll, trolling spam. Rose Maria Krebs-Ainslie proves me right again: she is a lousy poet, with her insulting "doggeral" (sic) and her reliance on sycophantic sock puppets to run her little errands. Did she have retainers like that back in the Joburg days? Or were three-in-a-bed quite enough for her then?

Poor slapper... she is really overstating things. Here, there and everywhere.

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5127 on: November 17, 2012, 07:45:35 PM »
Oi idiot,

'NO DISCHARGE WHATSOEVER OF OF ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY'

'they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all'

Both those statements mean the same thing, and have been proven false by your own data, which shows...

BATTERY VOLTAGE REDUCING OVER TIME = DISCHARGE OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE SUPPLY!

 :o

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5128 on: November 17, 2012, 08:03:49 PM »
Why do you continue to post those lies?

Quote
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day


That is a baldfaced lie, as shown by Ainslie's own scope shots with time stamps and her real-time blogging. The batteries WERE  NOT USED at a level of 20 Watts for five hours EACH WORKING DAY (five days a week by normal standards) FOR 10 MONTHS.... they were used intermittently a couple of hours a day, one or two days a week IF THAT MUCH, over the course of a college semester. There is NO EVIDENCE that Ainsile did what she claims, and there is SOLID EVIDENCE that the usage schedule is what I say. Where are scopeshots that indicate five consecutive days of usage? Nowhere. Where are the scopeshots that show such usage, during EACH OF THE TEN MONTHS Ainslie claims to have used them? Nowhere. There ARE, however, solid sequences, consecutively numbered automatically  by the oscilloscope, that show highly intermittent usage of a few hours on a few days during a few months. The EVIDENCE does not support the usage schedule Ainslie claims.

Quote
, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all.


That is ANOTHER BALDFACED LIE, as I have repeatedly shown using AINSLIE's OWN DATA. The data from Ainslie CLEARLY SHOW a steady and normal depletion of the battery voltage over the course of a series of trials. There is no "wild fluctuation" as Ainslie has claimed, there is a perfectly normal discharge curve that can be drawn from her data... and the FACT that the batteries show ANY reduction in voltage is STRONG EVIDENCE that they are in a state of substantial DISCHARGE already... in short, Ainslie has taken the VOLTAGE of nominal 12 volt LEAD ACID BATTERIES of HIGH CAPACITY, and as long as that voltage was above 12 volts each, she believes... or claims to believe.... that they are "still fully charged" and "have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all"..... when they clearly do show this loss, on her own scopetraces. Every time this statement is repeated, SHE LIES AGAIN, and I can prove it, have done so and will continue to do so whenever CREDIBLY challenged by anyone. I will make this PROOF of her lies available to ANY AND EVERY EDITOR of any journal to which Ainslie might submit any documents.  When all her scopeshots are gathered together, arranged in chronological order by timestamp, and in numerical sequence by the auto-assigned filename (something Ainslie has resisted with tooth and nail, leaving it to HER DETRACTORS to gather her data into one place for easy reference) it can be clearly seen by ANYONE WITH EYES and a functioning brain that Ainslie's lying claims in this regard are completely spurious and in fact are deliberately designed to deceive and conceal the FACT that her batteries DO IN FACT DISCHARGE NORMALLY DURING THE COURSE OF HER "EXPERIMENTATION". Of course no one has ever accused SheSaidSquat of having a functioning brain.

Quote
Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.

 Caught fire..... Yes, during the event where you damaged your borrowed oscilloscope by creating a ground loop with the reference leads. But WHERE ARE THESE MIRACLE BATTERIES NOW, that either "did" discharge or "didn't discharge" depending on which claim you are trying to repudiate lately? They are conveniently missing, so their state of charge CAN NEVER BE DETERMINED. This however does not deter you from continuing to LIE about their capacity, their performance, and their depletion.

Quote
However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts.


Why should there have been? Nothing unusual ACTUALLY occurred that would warrant any further investigation of these missing batteries. The laboratory you sent your apparatus off to was a CHEMISTRY LABORATORY and your "chemistry experts" found NOTHING ANOMALOUS and that their batteries discharged normally during use. They even sent you materials so that you could CORRECT your bogus measurements and see for yourself that you had nothing of interest or importance.. but you refused to do the tests they suggested, and nothing more has been heard of this entire program.... which after all was only a delaying tactic, one of many, that enabled you to continue to AVOID DOING THE TESTING YOU HAVE BEEN PROMISING TO DO, for YEARS now.

Quote
results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

You have no idea what "classical measurement protocols" are for this kind of investigation and you couldn't implement them if you tried.

There, is that clear enough for you, lying Rose Marie Krebs Ainslie, and reeking sockpuppet YouSaidSquat?

You find my arguments illogical, when I CLEARLY REFUTE YOU AT EVERY STAGE, with references that show your lies? I laugh at you, Krebs, or whatever you are calling yourself these days.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5129 on: November 17, 2012, 08:18:30 PM »
Let's do a quick review.

Some time ago Ainslie tried to claim that she had never claimed that the batteries recharge or are recharged during use. This claim was refuted by references to the PESWiki page, to her daft manuscripts, and to many statements she herself made in various blogposts and forum threads.

Then, just a few days ago, she tried to claim that she never referred to battery performance at all in her daft manuscripts. This was easily refuted with direct quotations from both of the later versions.

Then she tried to change the meaning of what she said before, by claiming that she actually MEANT to claim that there was no depletion of potential difference, or some such verbiage, while acknowledging that she certainly DID do what she had claimed earlier not to have done.
This most recent claim has also easily been refuted with direct quotes from ALL THREE of her manuscripts, the error-ridden Quantum article and the two many-times-rejected daft manuscripts that STILL DO NOT AGREE with the actual circuit used in the trials.

And now she is entangling herself with her own lies and squiggly squirmings, trying to make her words mean something else yet again. Soon she will try to convince you that she never tried to gain those three monetary awards based on her lying claims of COP>INFINITY.

Ainslie has come to the point where she now realises that NONE of the claims she has made concerning her "experimentation" are valid, with the exception of the "measured negative power", which of course has been independently replicated many times, and has been thoroughly analyzed, simulated in software and constructed in hardware, and is NOT any indication of what she claims it is. So just what is Ainslie-Krebs reduced to claiming? Not much at all, there is nothing left of her mendacious edifice of lies ...... she must content herself with her unsupported canards-- and her morbid sexual fascinations with a giant pickle.

 

OneLink