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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1998459 times)

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5145 on: November 19, 2012, 08:15:40 AM »
Whao, Ainslie pulls a double reversal!!!   :o :o ;)

Magsy

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5146 on: November 19, 2012, 08:41:10 AM »
Did you see this?

"Dear Bryan Little - better known as 'ickle pickle'

Many thanks for re-posting that challenge for the OVER UNITY prizes offered by Prof Jones, Poynty Point and Stefan Hartman.  THAT OFFER or THE CHALLENGE -   STILL STANDS.  Any takers?

Rosie Pose"

Thanks, sock puppet. Maybe you are good for something after all: like a motheaten sock that's lost its partner, it can still be useful for cleanups and spills.

You have saved me the trouble of documenting  _yet another_ of Rosemary Ainslie's transparent duplicities.

However, it of course goes into the database, for the amusement of imaginary lawyers everywhere.


If anyone knows who Bryan (or Brian) Little is, please tell him he's got messages waiting... a whole slew of them..... which, when he reads them all at once, will likely make him ill at the evidence of Ainslie's sick and wrothful soul.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5147 on: November 19, 2012, 03:30:37 PM »
It appears that our friend GMEAST is challenged by the Truth, for he says that he has sent email to our good host Stefan protesting his allowing me to post it.

Yet no one emails forum hosts about the utter and abject mendacity of the insulting and arrogant Rosemary Ainslie, which I have documented with her own words and data, references and screenshots. I am not allowed to tell the truth, and it's just fine to allow her to lie.

Gmeast, you can post here. Why don't you REFUTE me, with references, about some particular bit of Truth I've posted concerning Ainslie? Because you cannot, that's why. So you complain, behind my back, to my host, clearly in an attempt to damage me, and to prevent the Truth about Ainslie and her claims from being known.


It is indeed astounding. On March 22, 2011, Ainslie posts a video, announces it in this forum and on her blog with great pride as PROOF of her claims. Thirteen short days later, on April 4, 2011, she denies not only posting it, but also that it represents her claims. And it is this kind of thing that Gmeast apparently objects to... not AINSLIE doing it, but me recording it, providing references and proof of the actions, and pointing it out as proof of her mendacity.


You are one sick jerk! How much time do you spend daily nurturing your hate? Spend your time productively. You won't win, in fact your continual, senseless diarrhea of the mouth proves you are on a self-destructive spiral.  You're going to pop like a ripe zit.  No one will clean up the mess?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5148 on: November 19, 2012, 04:08:26 PM »

You are one sick jerk! How much time do you spend daily nurturing your hate? Spend your time productively. You won't win, in fact your continual, senseless diarrhea of the mouth proves you are on a self-destructive spiral.  You're going to pop like a ripe zit.  No one will clean up the mess?

Preserved for posterity.

And again we note that GMEAST chooses not to refute me.... for he cannot.... but chooses instead to insult me, once again, in a vile and disgusting manner.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5149 on: November 19, 2012, 09:15:11 PM »
Preserved for posterity.

And again we note that GMEAST chooses not to refute me.... for he cannot.... but chooses instead to insult me, once again, in a vile and disgusting manner.


I was wrong in calling you a "jerk". I'm sorry.


As far as 'refuting' you goes, that will take care of itself in due course.  In fact, it's already happened, you're just not paying attention.


As far as this Bryan Little stuff goes, anyone by that name knows that it would be stupid to try and claim any defamation or damages whatsoever.  Why,  because there has to be exposure to legitimize any claim of damage as well as intent to defame the 'real' Bryan Little ... and that intent ain't there.  The exposure here is zero, zip, nada, etc.  Ask 100 people on the street if they've ever heard of free energy, alternative energy, radiant energy, magnetic vortices, Overunity.com or, least of all, TK or TinselKoala.  Ask that question and you'll only get an answer of "HUH ?*%#$@". No one's listening because no one cares.


Found this:
"Tinsel: something superficially attractive or glamorous but of little real worth  ......."
You should think more of yourself ... oh! that's right you already do.


Oh well, back to my 'fakery' of proving the heater actually works.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5150 on: November 19, 2012, 10:36:16 PM »

I was wrong in calling you a "jerk". I'm sorry.
Apology noted. Will change in behaviour result? What about the "verbal diarrhoea", the "pop like a zit".... still feeling like those are appropriate responses to me?
Quote
As far as 'refuting' you goes, that will take care of itself in due course.  In fact, it's already happened, you're just not paying attention.
You are right... I did not notice the publication of your astounding results in a scientific journal, or the reports of replication by qualified laboratories that understand calorimetry. Link please?
And I didn't find, anywhere, anything that refutes my contention and proofs that Ainslie is a liar. Link?
Quote
As far as this Bryan Little stuff goes, anyone by that name knows that it would be stupid to try and claim any defamation or damages whatsoever.  Why,  because there has to be exposure to legitimize any claim of damage as well as intent to defame the 'real' Bryan Little ... and that intent ain't there.  The exposure here is zero, zip, nada, etc.  Ask 100 people on the street if they've ever heard of free energy, alternative energy, radiant energy, magnetic vortices, Overunity.com or, least of all, TK or TinselKoala.  Ask that question and you'll only get an answer of "HUH ?*%#$@". No one's listening because no one cares.
Rosemary Ainslie obviously cares, and is obviously trying to damage that particular Bryan (or Brian) Little in whatever way she can. Why do you think she went through the rigamarole of "revealing" that as her deluded identification of my identity, including the imaginary "fact" that I'm in Kentucky (or was it Tennessee) at the University there? And do you seriously think that these forums are the only places Ainslie emits out her vile canards? Just like you are, she's a great emailer, and has tried to identify people's employers and families, for her email campaigns. I think I understand Ainslie's motivations better than you do.... after all she's been attacking me for pointing out her false claims, lies, ignorance of her topic, and bad writing for around four years now.... and for some others here, for over TWELVE years. You are a freshman, a noob, when it comes to understanding the psychology of Rosemary Ainslie. Speaking of psychology.... I wonder how many professional baseball players moonlight as psychologists? Or is it the other way around.....
Quote

Found this:
"Tinsel: something superficially attractive or glamorous but of little real worth  ......."
You should think more of yourself ... oh! that's right you already do.
Well... I do, or I don't... which is it? Unlike some people, I know where my limitations lie, I know that I can always learn something and that I don't know everything about most things.... and I also know that I do know just about everything about one or two things that you know nothing at all about. I'm always ready to revise my knowledge when confronted with facts and references, and I certainly am NOT arrogant enough to believe that I've got an overunity device on my workbench.... four, right now in fact, all using different principles.... because I get some kind of result that looks anomalous to me. My very FIRST and usually correct assumption is that I've made a mistake somewhere.

I'd explain the history of my alias to you - as if you cared - but that would require you to understand the story of Archer Quinn, and the literary use of irony to make a point. The story of Quinn and his "Sword of God" is long gone, but my username here remains.  I kind of like it.... I always watch for when my impotent enemies quote a dictionary definition of "tinsel" to me. I could have used "silent".... but I have no intention of being silent when I see the kinds of abuse that people like Quinn, and Ainslie, and Mylow, and others wreak on the whole program of alternate energy research. You really should strive to avoid joining that group, by cleaning up your experimental act and doing your homework a bit more thoroughly.
Quote


Oh well, back to my 'fakery' of proving the heater actually works.

Here I will point out that "fakery" is your term and that no one that I know of has ever accused _you_ of data falsification or of faking anything. Can you provide a link to something I've missed?

You have, though, made a lot of errors, caused by simple ignorance, made extravagant claims based on those errors, (some of which, not all, have been corrected) and you've avoided taking good advice, caused by your arrogance. You really should submit a paper on your work to a legitimate journal, just to see what feedback you get from the editors.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5151 on: November 20, 2012, 12:55:48 AM »



"You are right... I did not notice the publication of your astounding results in a scientific journal, or the reports of replication by qualified laboratories that understand calorimetry. Link please?And I didn't find, anywhere, anything that refutes my contention and proofs that Ainslie is a liar. Link?"


Oh... you are referring to your notion that Rosie is a liar.  I don't know anything about that and don't care either. I thought you were referring to the notion that the heater doesn't actually work. Well, the heater DOES actually work and produces more energy (and power) OUT in the form of equivalent Heat than is INPUT in electrical energy (and power), albeit not at COP Infinity or COP>17, or 10, or 5, but it does perform a COP>1 as hard as that is for you to accept.  And this is for my hardware, not the same as hers, or yours, etc.


So I made many mistakes at the onset of these investigations.  And saying it right here and now, is AGAIN an admission of that AND still goes UNACKNOWLEDGED by you guys (as if I need your approval in the first place). Speaking of arrogance, you and your band of self righteous slammed me to the mat hard and viciously, so I shut you out.  But I do thank you for pointing out the 'oscillation / scope ground loop' thing. I don't tune for the oscillations anyway.


I'm NOT aligned with Rosie in any way, and, in fact, she recommends that I distance myself from her for my own good so I don't end up on the receiving end of the kind of treatment you have hurled her way (her words).  Well, if I do distance myself, I won't be employing YOUR insensitive and inhumane tactics.


BUT ... in spite of EVERYTHING, I'm still glad I invested in this research because what I have seen from the last few experiments tells me this technology is real, viable, valid and practical ... worthy of further investigation and perhaps even worthy of a preliminary effort aimed at some sort of product development.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5152 on: November 20, 2012, 01:36:08 AM »
Quote
perhaps even worthy of a preliminary effort aimed at some sort of product development.

How about a personal wireless hotspot and cellphone jammer that is also a coffee cup heater?  lol

orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5153 on: November 20, 2012, 03:35:36 AM »
There should be no 'us' and 'them', no hurt egos. Only facts, measurements, math and a grain of common sense. Otherwise, it's COP>insanity.


If something doesn't add up, I would first look, very hard, for the error in my calculation instead of declaring math obsolete.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5154 on: November 20, 2012, 03:45:08 AM »
There should be no 'us' and 'them', no hurt egos. Only facts, measurements, math and a grain of common sense. Otherwise, it's COP>insanity.


If something doesn't add up, I would first look, very hard, for the error in my calculation instead of declaring math obsolete.


Who declared math obsolete? 

orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5155 on: November 20, 2012, 04:18:35 AM »

Who declared math obsolete? 
It is an analogy. You implied that your experimental results defy CoE but you reject criticism. You deleted comments on your experiment that raised valid questions. Instead of triple-checking and peer reviewing your results, you chose to enjoy Ainslie stroking your ego.


This may sound like an insult, but it is a honest opinion and an invitation to participate in an open and truthful discourse with the regular posters in this thread, something Ainslie can't offer. Read this thread from beginning to end, if you don't believe it.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5156 on: November 20, 2012, 04:20:03 AM »
@gmeast:

Well, there, that was a reasonable and considered response on your part, thank you for that.

Yes, I am most concerned about Ainslie's claims, and I'm happy to let you off the hook on those, even though I think you should write up and post the complete story of how you got started: the initial examination of the NERD circuit and your rejection of it as unworkable, but your consideration of the Quantum circuit as something you might try; your initial response at finding that the 555 timer "didn't work", and what you actually found that it did do and how the circuit behaved;  the story of the recirculation diode that was or was not supposed to be in the circuit but definitely was not in the Quantum schematic, the results of testing the circuit with your own clock and finding the results of the application of the duty cycles claimed by Ainslie in the article .... and the reasons why you branched out of the more exact replication of Ainslie's Quantum circuit and claims, and went on to your completely different mosfet switching circuit. This story deserves to be told; it is important and you worked hard on it. It would not be intellectually honest for you to not report your attempts to replicate the Quantum claims.

The issue of your mistakes comes up because just saying "I made a mistake, I won't do it again" doesn't reassure us that you actually understand. If you only would say "yes, I see and understand .99's and TK's analysis of the problem and I see that I applied the duty cycle twice, here and here, and now I understand that the problem has to be worked like this and so, and this here is the result I get when I do it correctly, and I retract my earlier conclusion of COP 4" .... that would put the matter entirely to rest, and would have done so at the very beginning. But that's not how you approached the matter.

You are indeed right to distance yourself from Ainslie. It's difficult to see how you can do that though, since your "home forum" appears to be her honeytrap, and you are in back-channel communication with her, that isn't public, unless I miss my guess. There is no way that you should fear any treatment like Ainslie gets.... unless you start fabricating data, lying about your claims, insulting people over and over who are only trying to help you, censoring threads (oops... be careful), seeking monetary awards based on false claims, redefining common words to suit your changing purposes, and making crazy and fundamental errors like "One Joule is One Watt Per Second" and clinging to them in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary..... if you do those kinds of things... you might need to fear somebody calling you on them.

However if you continue to engage in reasonable discussion, avoid the egregious insult, do your work honestly and report positive as well as negative results..... take instruction where you are ignorant, share your own specialized knowledge.... what have you to fear from anyone?

And as far as "treatment being hurled her way"..... again, you haven't done your homework, I think. Read the pages in the locked thread before and after I came into this project, and you will see just how insulting and dismissive of others she really is, and you will begin to see the source of some of my ire. She can sure dish it out... but she cannot take it without whining and escalating and getting _really really_ nasty.  Treatment hurled her way? Just read her "doggeral" (sic) thread for some hurling treatments. Ainslie is the Red Queen of the insult, the smarmy snide comment, the disrespect of others, the misquote, the bogus attribution. See for yourself, look up the old thread and read it. It's a real hoot, especially now that you know the story of the "demo video" and its various claimed schematics.

Now... as to the issue of whether or not your results "refute" me or not.... I don't think they do, and here's why. In the first place I have criticised your experimental methodology and the suitability of the apparatus you are using to make the kinds of determinations you are attempting. Secondly, because of the similarity of your basic concept to the long-discredited and soundly disproven antics of YouKnowWho.... you must expect to be tarred by the same brush, at least initially, and your work to receive extra intense scrutiny.... especially considering where and how you choose to release your results. The fact that you made those early errors, and clung to them so vehemently, didn't help your cause in this regard, either.
So at this point we have your reported results, that indicate to you a slight degree of overunity performance. That's great, it gives you a solid target; many researchers are not nearly as fortunate as that. But these results are simply not "believable"... not in the sense that they could be fabricated; I saw your raw data notebook photo and I can't tell you how important that was and how much I respect you for showing it. But unbelievable in the sense that they go against the textbooks, if you want to put it that way, and as such, require very stringent proofs. And your work, as reported, is tantalizing and fascinating but sadly does not rise to the necessary standard of rigor and stringency. It is, however, a great starting point, as I have said. Now you should actively seek outside help, confirmation or disconfirmation as the case may be from other researchers _using different methods for data gathering_  as well as the same ones you are using. When these different methods agree, in different laboratories, then you have gone one more small step towards "refuting" me and all the textbooks too. When you've gotten a paper published, that's another small step. When the paper survives the incredibly intense attacks it will get from the entire scientific community who reads it in a peer reviewed journal.... then _perhaps_ it's time to start rewriting the textbooks, or at least adding some footnotes.

Get it, gmeast? Nobody is interested in attacking you, because you haven't done anything to be attacked for, and you aren't hurting anyone but yourself, and as long as you are having fun or keeping interested, that's OK with me. But when you insult me and .99 and MH and PW and others for trying to help you, and when you act as pigheaded as Ainslie does... my perfect Zen composure will break down and I'll give back what I think I'm getting. And when you make extraordinary claims of performance.... I expect you to be able to back up your claims with solid, repeatable, publicly available evidence. With the math checked already!!
There is certainly no law that requires this... or certain people would be in a lot of trouble... but it's the decent and proper thing to do, and I hope we can agree on that much at least.

Why don't you open a thread here, or over on Energetic Forum or even on .99's forum to inform others and discuss your work? I'm sure there will be a lot of interest, some overboard enthusiastic and some deadly skeptical. But as long as your technique is good and your reports are honest, what have you to fear from skeptics? You should be able to meet any and all objections with reasoned responses, outside references for your assertions, and data which support your claims. If you can't.... then maybe your skeptics have a point and you should pay attention. Ainslie is in the latter category, very much so, but she doesn't have the proper attitude to proceed; she rejects proper analysis and expert advice, and clings to her faulty conclusions. She is stuck solid trying to prove her "thesis" but cannot even muster experimental evidence that supports her basic claims. You aren't like that, I believe. I hope you don't prove me wrong on that point!!

orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5157 on: November 20, 2012, 04:51:43 AM »
I have a screenshot this time.

The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5158 on: November 20, 2012, 05:34:55 AM »
 
I am not a bastard, and turning it off won't help.
 
 

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5159 on: November 20, 2012, 05:53:25 AM »
Hah....!!

What do you think of THAT, gmeast? Are you sure that you are in the right place?


Myself, I'm laughing so hard I'm about to.... "hurl".......

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 :-* :-*

kiss kiss, babydoll........ Ainslie's "magnetic field model" has no connection whatsoever with reality, makes no quantitative predictions, contradicts itself, expresses a profound ignorance of ordinary physics, can't explain present experimental findings, cannot even explain correctly already understood phenomena, and makes all kinds of conclusions and claims for which there is no support whatsoever. It's a word salad, well past its sell-by date and rapidly wilting into slime. Yet she pretends it supersedes quantum electrodynamics and that she is more brilliant than Richard Feynman.... having learned her physics from "The Dancing WuLi Masters", after all. She thinks magnetic field lines are real!! Well, sure they are, just as real as the lines of latitude and longitude that keep the Earth from flying apart due to centrifugal force.