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 1998580 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #360 on: April 17, 2012, 06:11:04 AM »
TK - if you do not want my input it can only be because you want to comment - free from contradiction or challenge.  In effect the TarBaby thread would then be as relevant as a 'gossip column' - and have no relevance to any facts at all - let alone to science.  Frankly I think that would be a gross insult to the objects of this forum - a gross insult to the integrity of our readers - a gross insult to the intelligence of both our members and our readers - and a gross abuse of impartial and relevant assessment owed to good science practice and protocols.  It would be a gross abuse of the interest owed to the public good - which requires impartiality.  And it would be a gross abuse of the 'real truth' which is MileHigh's measure of excellence - albeit that it's somewhat tautological.

Therefore I put it to you that my input most certainly IS required.  God knows what our readers would have deduced, thus far, had I not pointed out where you TARBABY circuit is NOT a replication.  Because in defiance of the evidence - or the lack of it - (one or other or both options, as preferred) - you keep insisting that it is. 

As ever,
Rosie Posee/Poser
Changed deviance to defiance - but both terms are appropriate.   8)

I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #361 on: April 17, 2012, 06:34:26 AM »
Just in case there was any doubt, the Clarke-Hess can and will report "negative wattage" if it detects it. The numbers in the left window can be several things, but when "PWR" or "Px10" is selected the window displays the real power figure determined by taking into account the phase relationship between the voltage and current signals detected. Here the instrument is just "floating", its input harness isn't connected to anything, and it's picking up stray EM in the DeepBunker. (Selecting the "freq" display in the left window gives me a 60 Hz indication.) Look !! Free Energy, Negative Wattage !!



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #362 on: April 17, 2012, 06:41:10 AM »
Poynty Point.  If you're there.  PLEASE put TK straight.  I'm now seriously concerned that he's convinced himself that we're NOT using 1 Ohm resistors x 4 - in parallel.  You're well able to show this.  I can't.  I can't even find the appropriate shot.  It's too dark here and it's too late and my eyes are not equal to it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

YET AGAIN you lie. Nowhere do I allege or assert anything other than that you are using ONE OHM, TEN WATT resistors in parallel in your demo and your work. However, your paper lists them as ONE WATT.
I can see the resistors in the pictures of your demo and I can read the labels, ffs. YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS INSANE DISTORTION OF WHAT I SAY AND SHOW.

My whole point is that the INDUCTANCE of these resistors is much higher than what your paper says that they are, and this discrepancy needs to be addressed.

Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #363 on: April 17, 2012, 06:47:36 AM »
Here is Yet Another refutation of a misrepresentation that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance.

I refer to her complaint about the amplitude of the oscillations on the Tar Baby BATTERY trace... which once again she has wilfully ignored and lied about. This video should make it perfectly clear that:

1) the battery trace oscillations are the same amplitude as NERD shows on scope traces
2) the amplitude of the battery trace oscillations is set by finely tuning the drive from the FG or the 555
3) the current through the system depends on the oscillation amplitude and is set by 2) above
4) the load heats up in this mode, and by an amount that depends on the current in 3).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUxzOyS-ck

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #364 on: April 17, 2012, 07:07:55 AM »
I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.

My dear TinselKoala,
Here's the thing.  If you did not insult our work - then I would not be insulting yours.  The original insult stems from a compulsive requirement to deny our claim based on any reason at all.  When I challenge those bases - which are insulting to me - you are thereby insulted by that challenge.  And that simply compounds those insults whereupon you lose your emotional control and then run to Stefan for appeals to 'intervene'. 

I would hope that if you are to evaluate the evidence that is shown in our papers - that you would also evaluate the actual claim.  Thus far you have not even addressed it.  It relates to the negative voltage computed across the shunt resistors.  And there most assuredly ARE 4 of them and they most assuredly are at 1 Ohm.  And their inductance has been carefully evaluated with the fine and calibrated instrument shown in our video display.  Therefore when you question those facts then you are inferring errors and those inferences are inappropriate.  And when you don't refer to the current flow measured from those resistors - then you are omitting the only relevant aspect of our claim.  And yet.  Without all that INFERENCE you have no argument.  So?  What to do?

My options are to let you continue this thread - which will make it the most biased equivalent of a scientific 'gossip column' ever to disgrace these forums.  Fraught as it is with the misrepresentations associated with any kind of 'gossip'.  Or I must interject - timeously - with some kind of protest against that gossip.  Knowing how much you resent any corrections - notwithstanding it's dire need - I also know that you're very likely to lose any kind of emotional control and that you'll 'run to Stefan' very much as my grandchildren 'run to their mother' - when they've got a complaint. 

May I remind you.  My own thread was comprehensively set ablaze by the contributions of MileHigh, fuzzytomcat, and picowatt and your good self.  My post response lagged your combined input by a factor not less than 6 and possibly as high as 10.  At no stage did I need to run to Harti.  And - on the face of it - I'd say that I was somewhat outnumbered.  But never outgunned.  So.  I put it to you that you can only comfortably operate when you are free to promote your irrelevant assessments of our claim.  And that your objects are not to evaluate anything at all  - but to put a spin on things in the thin hopes that no-one then believes our results or that they dismiss them - out of hand.  And that authority depends on the welter of support that is on 'tap' from precisely these personalities.  And I also suspect that every time that Harti bans me it's because you 4 together with that charming host who contribute to my hate blog -  send him emails - in concert - to protest to my posting anything at all.

Well.  One needs must ask why?  Why are you so anxious to apply your 'spin'?  And why must you do this without fear of 'contradiction'?  Because the disciplines of science require that everything is always challenged.  But under usual circumstances - both sides of the case needs must be evaluated.  Are you trying to promote something that is less than scientific?  Are you anxious that people don't realise your instruments aren't capable of performing the measurements that you claim?  Are you hoping that all will overlook our actual claim while you pretend that it's entirely related to the evidence of an oscillation?  Which on its own means absolutely nothing at all?  Are you persisting with the use of the wrong element resistor to avoid showing the benefits of it's higher 'iron mass' and it's higher inductance value?  Are you casting aspersions related to our shunt resistor measurements because you hope thereby to assure our readers that our measurements are fallacious?  Are you avoiding mention of the DC coupling of our oscilloscope - so that you can promote 'doubts' related to the voltage measured across the gate?  Are you avoiding any analysis of the energy dissipated in your calorimetric apparatus because you can only 'infer' a value and not actually measure it?  And why do you keep referring to my 'mendacity' if it's not to cast a slur against my good character?  And where have I 'lied'?  as you repeatedly claim. 

If you had any strength of conviction you would most certainly NOT need the rather vocal support of those who you keep appealing to - to rally.  And you would be more than ready to 'take me on'.  But you can't.  Your argument is weak.  In fact it's non-existent.  And you cannot manage anything at all when the 'real truth' (MileHigh's term, not mine) is brought to the table.  Therefore do you need to silence me.  And to effect that you'd prefer it that I was 'banned'.  That's hardly an acceptable solution.  I need to defend our claim against a valid counterclaim.  I have had no such evidence. 

Regards,
Rosemary
added some emphasis.  still not enough.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #365 on: April 17, 2012, 07:13:45 AM »
BIPS.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #366 on: April 17, 2012, 03:17:07 PM »

Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.

I do not misrepresent your work.  That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt.  That's the first time TK.  In what is it?  25 pages or thereby?  That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested.  And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.  That's an interesting visual reference.  Why did you see need to pass it by?  So quickly?  And I see that you've finally managed to get the those oscillations consistent between each switching cycle.  Well done.  Your previous best efforts confused the repositioning of that watt meter from what you termed the 'output' and the 'input'.  Both terms are entirely inapplicable.  And then you compounded that 'confusion' with the erroneous display of a voltage applicable to that current display - at something in the region of 7 volts.  Will you please explain this.  And when and if you are showing us numbers on anything at all - then it would be as well tell let us know what those numbers represent.  Else you're using implication and allegation.  Not scientific TK.  Not at all.

And WHEN are you going to give us some kind of assessment of the wattage dissipated as heat?  You accused us of NOT doing this.  We HAVE.  But you still HAVE NOT.  In fact what you claimed is that the heat that was dissipated at the load resistor resulted from the 'twiddling' as you put it - of the offset - prior to the oscillation.  How could you determine this?   And what is the earthly good of doing your battery depletion exercise without giving us those results?  We still don't know what that rate of discharge is.  We still don't know the battery capacity.  Are you keeping this hidden?  For some reason?  Or do you rely on all that ambiguity?  Where you can IMPLY anything you like and you leave it to everyone's exhausted patience and attention - to take a stab at the sums for themselves.  And then you duck behind the need to do this by implying that if we were all sufficiently 'expert' then we'd see those well hidden values?

You're dancing the dance of the 7 veils.  We need clarity.  Kindly oblige us all.

Regards,
Rosie Posie

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #367 on: April 18, 2012, 12:37:30 AM »
You do misrepresent my work in EVERY post you make, liar.
For example:
Quote
I do not misrepresent your work.  That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt.  That's the first time TK.  In what is it?  25 pages or thereby?  That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested.  And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.

You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work.

This is just ONE of the many prior times I have shown the voltage across the CVR. You lie about my work with every post you make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA
Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z95kvoE7s
And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI

Note the dates, you liar, and go and play somewhere else. You even made some misrepresentation comment about this last one, so I know you have seen it before. Therefore, you are a liar, because you know damn well that I have shown "shunt" or CVR traces before.

You constantly misrepresent my work. Yesterday you were claiming that I said something about a 10 ohm resistor, which I never did. Today you are claiming I haven't shown CVR traces, which I clearly have. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, Rosemary.

Now. Please go away and lie about somebody else's work for a change.


WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #368 on: April 18, 2012, 01:06:16 AM »
Some recent quotes from Ainslie:

Quote
TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery. 


Quote
. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not





Preserved for posterity, emphasis mine.

One simply must wonder though... if over unity is not being claimed..... why is the Overunity Prize being applied for?

And again the claim of COP _greater than_ infinity is made. Varying levels of efficiency, all exceeding infinity. COP numbers--- different numbers--- all over infinity. All different, all over infinity. There it is in black and white, in her own words as posted on this very thread. She's not claiming over unity... just several different efficiencies, all different, all exceeding infinity.

And again... several more claims are made without any references or support. If high heat can be achieved with the single mosfet, positive gate drive _and 72 volts_.... why then was only 48 volts used for the demo of this mode? One battery was pulled out of the stack without explanation, and this has never yet been explained.... by anyone except me.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #369 on: April 18, 2012, 03:46:28 AM »
This is getting really interesting.  TK.  My goodness.  You DID reference those shunt voltages?  And I missed them?  Somehow?  I'm getting old. Clearly.  Delighted that you set me straight because if you didn't I wouldn't have noticed them.  God forbid.  Luckily I've made up for lost time and can now count myself in as one of the 69 viewers that it has well deserved.  Here are some questions against the first video referenced.  Hopefully more of our readers will take the trouble to look at this - CLOSELY.

Your first video referenced 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
.  Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
.  It's really easily managed.  Yet you didn't see some need for this?
.  Or is that display there?  In the right hand corner at the top?
.  Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
.  But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
.  ALWAYS
.  And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
.  When this would have got to the heart of the matter
.  so easily?
.  And that trick with the ground?
.  And all that INSINUATION?
.  Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
.  Therefore the circuit is only finally open
.  Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
.  When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
.  Shouldn't you have explained this?
.  Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
.  I'd have thought?
 
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'?  Surely not?  I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics.  :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit.  It's not your style.  I see that now.

Regards TK
Rosie Pose

By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine.  Is that a warehouse?  Full of equipment?  Did you officially register your loan of it?  For that little video of yours?  I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.   

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #370 on: April 18, 2012, 04:14:33 AM »
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.

Not at all TK.  I have some background work to do.

.  I need assurance that the thread that I report on will not be 'flamed'.
.  Again
.  Or locked
.  Before the work is finished
.  Because that WILL jeopardise the technology
.  And our hard work
.  And the good of public interest
.  In relation to this claim
.  And I need assurance that the applied protocols will then constitute unequivocal proof
.  Which will take some negotiating
.  With all parties.

And I need to establish a series of tests as representative of that proof
And then I need to establish that proof as it relates to our thesis

Then - when that is managed
.  I need to establish the setting for those tests
.  And the methods required to bring this to the public arena
.  That nothing can be 'fudged' or 'falsely represented'
.  Because I know your tendency to 'imply and infer' such
.  And I want to be sure that you have no grounds for complaint.

Then - there would be no point in testing this
.  If I do not closely follow your work
.  Lest you negate the value of the tests
.  On spurious bases.
.  Which means that I have to study your arguments
.  Even before I present my own

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #371 on: April 18, 2012, 04:38:27 AM »
And guys, while I'm at it and FOR THE RECORD.

We use 4 x 1 Ohm 10 Watt resistors. 
We have a 10 Ohm resistor that is disconnected to the circuit

And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY.  And not only is COP infinity yet to be explained but it needs must have some qualification.  As the levels of that COP are VARIABLE.  Semantically confusing - but nonetheless - required.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

added
Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever.  What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.  The apparent COP Infinity is simply the result of our standard measurement protocols that only allow for one energy supply.  Therefore the term COP Infinity is simply an artifact related to one of the many anomalies that we're exposing in this circuit. 

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #372 on: April 18, 2012, 04:54:47 AM »
What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.
Rosemary,

What material in the circuit is used up in the process? All, one specific?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #373 on: April 18, 2012, 05:24:53 AM »
Guys,
The following is part of a background 'on going' complaint against me and my work - written to Stefan - with the general appeal that I be banned and thereby prevented from defending our work against any spurious arguments presented by any members at all.  Since I am heartily sick and tired of dealing with these background 'whispers' I am making that complaint public knowledge.  And I argue it accordingly.

The complainant states...
Stefan,I would agree totally now with Rosemary's continued misrepresentation of any facts by anyone presented is constantly challenged with uneducated nonsense babble from Rosemary.
My education is well equal to the task in hand.  And my language skills are considerably better than the 'babble' here referred to.
The continued denial of Rosemary in her testing and evaluation data being incorrect from data collection to the interpretation of that data.
The evaluation of that data is NOT incorrect.  And since the evaluation is related to the 'interpretation' then that qualification is redundant.
The simple question of "which" schematic was or was not used and presented in Rosemary's BLOG, PWESwiki and paper #2 to this day has not been answered.
The correct schematic applied to our tests has most CERTAINLY been answered.  If I knew how to access my locked thread I'd prove it.
continued/...

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #374 on: April 18, 2012, 05:25:22 AM »
All I see from Rosemary is lurking around attacking posters with anything unrelated to the conversation like a addict looking for a fix to get their rush.
I am indeed 'addicted' to defending our technology from 'attack'.  It's URGENTLY required lest spurious objections mitigate against the evidence and our public interest and public good thereby get jeopardised.
Rosemary still doesn't understand the thread she got locked down was from her own fault by giving incorrect information, unable to justify the results of the information she did provided, unable to answer all the questions directed towards the information she provided, new required additional testing she was directed to accomplish and didn't and to stop the redundant repeating of her incorrect test results.
This was NOT why the thread was locked.  It was locked because Stefan was innundated with claims from those such as this poster and TK flaming that thread to prevent any kind of decent progress of a discussion related to the required test parameters.
The requirement for further testing for a new thread is nonsense without a "firm" timeline, although everyone knows she isn't going to do any anyway as it would disrupt her prized unproven THESIS that this is all about, nothing really about a device or reproduction.
The ONLY thing that is delaying this is a firm undertaking by Stefan NOT to lock those threads before the completion of proposed series of tests which cover up to 7 different 'draw down' tests required against not less than 3 circuits to be tested.
Rosemary is a ignorant person that lives a life of false statements and bloviating her accomplishments for COP>INFINITY to which no one agrees with but herself.
In the first place I DO NOT advertise any accomplishments - let alone towards claims of COP>INFINITY - which we argue is nonsense.  And IF I am ignorant it does not, in any way, meet the level of ignorance related to this communication or to the communicator - who is STILL unaware of the extent of our claim. And there are many, many, many people who entirely agree that our measurements indicate COP Infinity.  At it's least this question needs to be addressed as there is no explanation for this within the standard model.  Therefore would it progress the interests of science, and the implications of that measurement would indicate that there is some real benefit to us all - to apply this technology.  As it exposes the evidence of an alternate energy supply source that has not, heretofore, been fully exploited.  And I do not bloviate.  I am merely articulate.  Which is something that this poor poster IS NOT.
 
 There you have it.  This and variations of this communication continually FLOOD Stefan.  Is it any wonder that he simply locks my threads - or bans me?  To date I've resisted answering them.  Here's an exception.
 
 Regards,
 Rosemary