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 1998248 times)

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5160 on: November 20, 2012, 07:48:41 AM »
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.


OOOH ... you told me.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5161 on: November 20, 2012, 07:59:23 AM »
TK,


I HAVE opened a thread, but not here and not on EF either.  I'm not interested in debunking this technology.  I'm interested in proving it valid because it is.  You're NOT interested in attacking me?  Bull ... on the contrary .... you promote that behavior ... just look at newbie butt 3000. He jumped right on your band wagon.  I have to give it to you. Your campaign of hate is powerful and alluring to the weak-minded.  Yes, I am in the wrong place.  Goodbye

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5162 on: November 20, 2012, 10:59:18 AM »
Ah well. A brief glimmer of rationality and now, back into full character for GMEAST. OK, fellow, why don't you just bugger on off then, and quit polluting this thread with your insults and your bogus claims of overunity. When you've got some real proof of something from your playthings, let us know so we can worship you alongside your Red Queen, Rosemary Ainsile.

I tried to treat you reasonably, GMEAST, but you will have none of it. Fine. The truth is that you too are wrong, and years from now, when you are huddled over your mains-powered heater some winter, you will remember these days, and you will fume to yourself in anger and frustration.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5163 on: November 20, 2012, 05:02:00 PM »
Ah well. A brief glimmer of rationality and now, back into full character for GMEAST. OK, fellow, why don't you just bugger on off then, and quit polluting this thread with your insults and your bogus claims of overunity. When you've got some real proof of something from your playthings, let us know so we can worship you alongside your Red Queen, Rosemary Ainsile.

I tried to treat you reasonably, GMEAST, but you will have none of it. Fine. The truth is that you too are wrong, and years from now, when you are huddled over your mains-powered heater some winter, you will remember these days, and you will fume to yourself in anger and frustration.


What a pathetic and childish response that was.  I can feel the ground shake from you pouting, stomping feet. I have good evidence, and I have never claimed "proof" 'per 'se.   I'm just not going to show it to you ... here.  Why? Because you want me to.  And THAT is a source of "anger and frustration" YOU are feeling NOW.  This is an illegitimate forum.  Go and continue to hone your hate agenda and tactics.

evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5164 on: November 20, 2012, 06:29:19 PM »
I'm not interested in debunking this technology.  I'm interested in proving it valid because it is.

That there is the entire root of your problem gmeast, and why you are hurtling headlong down the road to failure.

Any researcher worth his salt will attempt to refute himself at every opportunity, what he will not do is set out to prove something he has already decided is true.

I myself completely junked the design for the superheated electrolysis cell after 10 years of work on it. Three short months later I had completely redesigned it and released it so that my peers can tell me if it works or not, not the other way around.

Your attitude stinks, your skills in this area of research are questionable from what I have seen, and it is likely any success you have will hinge on a modern version of this:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm

I wish you luck, your going to need it!

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5165 on: November 21, 2012, 06:21:53 AM »
Polly Parrot squawks again. Look at all the terms she uses!!
Conversion of electrical to mechanical energy...... from a person who doesn't understand the difference between a Joule and a Watt...
Einstein Equivalence Principle.... quick, take away her internet access and then ask her to define this principle, with examples... she cannot. She has no idea what she's talking about!!
The Standard Model.... she uses this phrase over and over again without understanding at all what the Standard Model really is. Same with her use of "standard measurement protocols".... which she does not understand and doesn't use, even though we have given her plenty of information and references as to what those actually are!
Counter Electromotive force..... again, a parroted phrase with absolutely no understanding whatsoever!
And the claim of "our numbers prove it"...... is just silly. Her numbers prove that she has lied about her experiment over and over again. Her numbers prove that her batteries do discharge. Her numbers prove that she did not "bring water to boil". Her numbers prove that the schematics presented in the demo video and in the daft manuscripts were not the actual circuit used for the experiments reported. Her numbers.... the five rejections, the five different schematics, the four different versions of the same documents all with differing information and no explanations, the four forum bannings that I know of ...... her numbers prove her mendacity and prevarication, nothing more.

Squawking up a Blue Streak, that parrot is.



gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5166 on: November 22, 2012, 03:57:28 AM »
That there is the entire root of your problem gmeast, and why you are hurtling headlong down the road to failure.

Any researcher worth his salt will attempt to refute himself at every opportunity, what he will not do is set out to prove something he has already decided is true.

I myself completely junked the design for the superheated electrolysis cell after 10 years of work on it. Three short months later I had completely redesigned it and released it so that my peers can tell me if it works or not, not the other way around.

Your attitude stinks, your skills in this area of research are questionable from what I have seen, and it is likely any success you have will hinge on a modern version of this:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm

I wish you luck, your going to need it!


Ha! this forum is not a group of my peers.  You haven't seen anything more because I've stopped showing.   Anyway, to all Americans, Happy Thanksgiving.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5167 on: November 22, 2012, 04:02:56 AM »
Why do you post here then, troll? Just trying to get a reaction? Things kind of dull at the honeytrap?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5168 on: November 22, 2012, 05:32:24 AM »
If Ainslie claims to have used "standard measurement protocols" she lies, because she has not done so.

Standard measurement protocols for measuring battery performance are contained in various ASTM and IEEE documents which have been referred to her attention... and she has ignored them completely, substituting her use of the simple, no-load voltage reading as an indicator of battery state of charge... when it is no such thing.

Standard measurement protocols for measuring current flows in oscillating systems involve much more sophisticated procedures and techniques and instrumentation than Ainslie has ever used. This too has been pointed out to her and she has been referred to documentation from LeCroy, Tektronix, Agilent, and other publishers explaining the ACTUAL standard protocols for this determination.... which, again, she has either ignored completely or merely paid lip service to. In addition, her failures and the results of them on her measurements and conclusions derived from them have been explained, analyzed, illustrated and duplicated.... and she rejects all such REAL standard analysis as being inapplicable, wrong, or simply far over her head.

Standard measurement protocols for ENERGY and POWER include such arcane things as ENERGY INTEGRALS computed by oscilloscopes receiving proper data from their probes, properly programmed and properly interpreted. Ainslie knows how to turn a scope on... and she does so before every measurement, then turns the scope off. (Standard measurement protocols call for even digital scopes to warm up for at least 30 minutes to stabilize and they should not be turned on and off every ten or fifteen minutes. That is just silly.)

Standard measurement protocols of heat produced in a load include such things as controlled environments, proper heat transfer materials, calibrated sensors, correct measurement points, and more. Ainslie tapes a thermocouple to a load hanging in air, then when it's really hot, she dunks it into a jug of water, and calls the resulting numbers "temperature data". Ainslie has no clue at all about standard calorimetry protocols or even standard physical power measurement protocols, and once again, this is deliberate, carefully protected ignorance on her part.

In short, Ainslie is ignorant of REAL standard measurement protocols, deliberately and egregiously so, and has never used them in any way in any of her reported "experiments". Whenever she claims to have done so, she lies.

In addition, she is FAR from being the "first" to do these things and to make these claims based on them. Her only distinction, besides being allegedly female, is that she is by far the most snidely and openly insulting, ignorant, and overweeningly arrogant of all the people who have made overunity claims, even surpassing Joe Newman in obnoxiousness. To claim to be the "first" is again simply another Ains-lie.

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5169 on: November 23, 2012, 03:55:29 AM »
You do not need scopes or any sophisticated instruments or equipment to analyze the heater technology.  The more sophisticated instruments you use, the greater the number of possible interpretations of the readings.  "Simple" is better in most cases. 

evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5170 on: November 23, 2012, 06:06:27 PM »
Ha! this forum is not a group of my peers.

When you put it like that gmeast, I have no choice but to agree with you.

The serious researchers on this forum would never dream of announcing an overunity result without a rigorous, replicable proof. It would be professionally embarrassing to do so.  The revision of your initial COP 4 result down to COP 1.2 tells it's own story as your measurement techniques and analysis improved, soon you may get accurate results which will be COP < 1.

Here's some links for you:

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-electric-kettles-work.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating

If you have any problems with the math ask your mentor to assist you ;)

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5171 on: November 24, 2012, 08:52:59 AM »
When you put it like that gmeast, I have no choice but to agree with you.

The serious researchers on this forum would never dream of announcing an overunity result without a rigorous, replicable proof. It would be professionally embarrassing to do so.  The revision of your initial COP 4 result down to COP 1.2 tells it's own story as your measurement techniques and analysis improved, soon you may get accurate results which will be COP < 1.

Here's some links for you:

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-electric-kettles-work.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating

If you have any problems with the math ask your mentor to assist you ;)
You are NOT professionals.  This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals.  You buy some scopes, throw around some big words, think you are technically competent, criticize everyone and everything that does not fit your hate agenda, and reek of narcissism.  Thank goodness you all only congregate in one place ... here at TK's tea room for self-strokers.


Do you have any idea of how you guys have been played.  I can choose just the right words, and BANG! it's guaranteed that at least one of you will puke forth the type of crap you just did evolvingape.


By the way, you need to evolve just a little more before you can join the rest of the human race, because you still haven't evolved past the feces flinging stage.  There's an opening at the San Diego Zoo.  They're waiting for you.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5172 on: November 24, 2012, 02:44:10 PM »
You are NOT professionals.
And you ARE?

Quote
This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals.
It is acutely obvious that every time you post this type of nonsense, you are quite accurately describing yourself.

Quote
Do you have any idea of how you guys have been played.
Good to see that you are finally admitting to some of your shortcomings. It's unfortunate that you choose trolling over being a scientifically-honest researcher.

I'll not be responding to any more of gmeast's rhetoric, and I would encourage others here not to either. Feed the troll, and he will just keep coming back with more of the same.

mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5173 on: November 24, 2012, 02:50:01 PM »
"You are NOT professionals.  This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals"

Well that's something that can be put to the test, isn't it, although it's presumptious to describe everyone on "a forum" with a blanket term.

So, if we're looking at what constitutes a "professional" in these matters, let's see what written qualifications everyone claims to have that they believe is pertinent to the matter at hand. And lets see how many years people claim to have made a living as a professional in a related discipline.

Leave out identifying details if you need to of course.



Me first:

Relevant qualifications: none, with the exception of O level electronics and A level maths, physics and computer science. No idea what that means to you foreigners, but it's pre-university stuff.

Relevant work experience: none that I consider relevant for the purposes of the discussion,



Right, @gmeast, you next?

gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5174 on: November 24, 2012, 04:53:47 PM »
"You are NOT professionals.  This is a forum for low-life WANT-TO-BE-professionals"

Well that's something that can be put to the test, isn't it, although it's presumptious to describe everyone on "a forum" with a blanket term.

So, if we're looking at what constitutes a "professional" in these matters, let's see what written qualifications everyone claims to have that they believe is pertinent to the matter at hand. And lets see how many years people claim to have made a living as a professional in a related discipline.

Leave out identifying details if you need to of course.



Me first:

Relevant qualifications: none, with the exception of O level electronics and A level maths, physics and computer science. No idea what that means to you foreigners, but it's pre-university stuff.

Relevant work experience: none that I consider relevant for the purposes of the discussion,



Right, @gmeast, you next?


As I said .... push the right buttons and worms like you bust wide open ... In other words, what you just said above:


" ... but I AM a professional ... I AM, I Am, I Am ... my mommy said I was good and she said I was smart ... and mine is bigger than  yours ... and, and, and ... mommy, me want more pablum, me hungry but me good and smart ... mommy, mommy, mommy ..."


" ...  A level maths ... "  ???math(s)??? goo goo dah dah


This is fun!


So let me see about this tea room of TK's.  You keep an archive so you can keep posting things that refer to ONLY past events regarding the work of others.  And on occasion, when you have nothing better to do, or a new puppet joins your cult, you reach BACK into your trusty bag of archives and TRY to keep discrediting other people who are hoping to better mankind's plight.  What a noble purpose you have carved out for yourselves.  What you don't know is what is going on "behind the scenes".


There are folks who apparently know much more about anomalous energy than you characters.  You're not aware enough to consider that your scopes and other sophisticated instruments, that you rely on so heavily for you bias and hate, might not be detecting EVERYTHING that's going on.  GOOD! More for me when it's all said and done.  You are actually doing those of us who DO CARE a service by staying in you own little corner, stroking each other (figuratively).


I've noticed that you 'gentlemen' make frequent reference to this "archive" of yours.  It seems to be something very significant.  TK, are you going to take your archive and write a book some day?  You better hurry ... it's about to be rendered irrelevant ... like you.