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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

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: 83885
  • *Latest: geovat

  • *Total Posts: 522969
  • *Total Topics: 15572
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1467884 times)

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4200 on: July 20, 2012, 03:37:17 PM »
@TK and his fellow unfortunates may feel the need to view and respond to Rosemary's boilerplate word-soup.

But not me.

Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Ignore List - > "Rosemary Ainslie" -> Add

If she says anything worth saying, I'm sure it'll get through.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4200 on: July 20, 2012, 03:37:17 PM »

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4201 on: July 20, 2012, 04:18:04 PM »
   Any chance the device underconsideration is an application of Tesla's distribution plan below.   This patent is confusing because he refers to megacycles and generators takingup and putting out energy and all sorts of stuff.  I can't make heads nor tails out of it.  And what the hell is a disruptive discharge and exactly what is it disrupting?  There are references to gaining time and opposite electricities rushing towards capacitors.  In rush currents are weird.  I have seen them trip breakers rated well over locked rotor amps.  I have had to install electronic soft start modules on one of identical units in a plant where the other units have no problem with in rush currents.   I believe it has to do with the length of the conductors and the speed of the contact closure. And the hf produced when the contacts act as a spark gap.   In this patent tesla is converting highvoltage to lower voltage.  It appears that voltage is potential energy and current is kinetic energy so the higher the potential the more the current.  Current is a work function and voltage is an energy function.  The inrush currents charge a capacitor where energy is stored.  The inrush currents of great magnitude charge the capacitor time and time again up to millions of times a second.  The voltage rise on the capacitor terminal discharges through the loads  (translating devices is how Tesla referred to them) where the voltage drop does such things as heat wires and cause currents to flow through various motor coils.  I guess what Tesla was doing here was using inrush currents to charge the capacitor and dc potentials to drive the loads.  The capacitor would be charged up to potentials that either alternated or oscillated it depended on what kind of translational load you wanted to drive.  Also in this patent we have Tesla telling us that we can modify the currents in a portion of a circuit by attaching a capacitor.  What I see is yes attach the capacitor in parallel with a load of highself-inductance where voltage developed on the local capacitor causes highmagnitude currents to flow in the load from conversion of voltage into current. 
  The inrush current part is what intrigues me as it seems quite instantaneous.  Like how fast a field can propogate from an electron or proton.  The field propogating from these little emwavefields appears to be instantaneously propogated.
 
http://www.google.com/patents?id=66VeAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4202 on: July 20, 2012, 05:15:58 PM »
Yes, and no.
In 462418, Tesla shows a system for taking a higher voltage source and regulating the distribution of power from this source to multiple loads, that may have different power requirements, by using sparkgaps and capacitors and wire lengths in tuned circuits. Tesla here isn't concerned about where the power came from or how it got to the source in this patent. He's just showing how to "down-convert" it, as sparks says, from HV perhaps low current source or supply, to LV, higher current source to power loads.

Yes, in that the receiver system of the Royer oscillator wireless power transmission system is doing that, in effect, especially in the receiver that powers the DC motor at high RPM: there you have all the elements, a spark gap at the commutator, a heavily inductive load, and a large reservoir capacitor that makes the whole thing work.

No, in that the present power transmission system appears to be strictly inductive in its mechanism, rather than the capacitative methods of wireless power transmission that Telsa seemed to prefer. Of course the transmission of power from Tesla's primary coils to his secondaries and tertiary coils was mostly inductive. But the longer range,  globespanning systems were making use of the capacitance of the Schumann cavity for their instantaneous, lossless power transmission through the electric field. A big problem with that system, though, is that pretty much everything is a receiver for the power.... it is hard to "tune it _out_."

My TinselKoil v 2.0 is a solid-state analog of Telsa's disruptive discharge system. You can see that its power arc is of relatively great power for the size of the device. With a proper pulse-shaping network between the x-bridge and the primary, true DD performance could be attained and the output peak power increased greatly even over what is shown. Another alternative would be to incorporate a sparkgap-cap in a tuned tank between the xbridge and the primary, making a hybrid ss-sg system that might prove interesting indeed. Also might produce spectacular mosfet fireworks!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4202 on: July 20, 2012, 05:15:58 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4203 on: July 20, 2012, 05:28:36 PM »
@TK and his fellow unfortunates may feel the need to view and respond to Rosemary's boilerplate word-soup.

But not me.

Profile -> Modify Profile -> Edit Ignore List - > "Rosemary Ainslie" -> Add

If she says anything worth saying, I'm sure it'll get through.
We've seen how she garbles simple information from single paragraphs that people here and elsewhere have posted to her. Her impression of QED is similarly garbled. If she can garble three or four facts in every paragraph of a discussion about simple electrical circuits... over and over..... imagine how scrambled her internal representation of QED or any other actual scientific construct must be. Especially since she has never had any formal study in the topic, never solved a real quantitative problem, and has no calculus, no trig, or even algebra from the looks of things.
She doesn't read the words, she only looks at the shapes, after all. And she assiduously avoids looking at anything, like my clear explanatory video demonstrations, that could disabuse her of her erroneously held assumptions about those things she has not studied. Willfully ignorant of her topic, she continues to respond NOT to actualities, but to her own delusions and hallucinations of what she _thinks_ people have said, what she would _like_ them to have said, and to what she _conceives_  a scientific construct like QED to be. And she gets it all wrong, more often than not, because, like the blind man, she doesn't need a light herself, it's all the same darkness to her, and when she bumps into somebody else, she thinks it's their fault for not seeing HER light..... but she can't see that her own light has gone out... or in this case, was never lit at all.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4204 on: July 20, 2012, 08:40:02 PM »
Guys I realise that the most of you are bored to tears with theory.  And God knows that TK's handle on theory is somewhat tenuous.  But I've attempted to answer some of this nonsense in this link.  And I feel that I deserve some hearing to discount the entirely spurious objections that picowatt and TK are posing against our thesis on this.  Also - it may at least serve to alert those of you who need it - to the absurdities of QED per TK and picowatt.

Regards,
Rosemary

Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2729.html#msg2729

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4204 on: July 20, 2012, 08:40:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4205 on: July 20, 2012, 09:29:22 PM »
You deserve nothing but the contempt that you have so often and so skilfully earned. You lie, distort, misappropriate the work of others, attempt to cover up and hide your own "open source" data, you mislead everyone who deals with you and even now, nobody knows just what the TRUE schematic is for your device. You have no outside checkable references for any of your claims and you cannot refute me or PW or any one of us with demonstrations, data, and especially MATH.

Your "response" is another logorrhea, a word salad that betrays your amazing lack of understanding, not only of physics in general but QED in particular.... even to the definition of the term "quantum" and just what is meant by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We need fear not: anyone who has ever completed even a freshman physics class, or who ever has tinkered with an electronic circuit, will be able to discern that you, Ainslie, dolt,  have no clue about what you attempt to discuss, whatsoever.

In short, you, Ainslie, are a willfully ignorant, overweeningly arrogant amateur, not even a proper aficionado, who actually gives "dilettantism" a bad name.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4206 on: July 20, 2012, 09:33:21 PM »
Guys I realise that the most of you are bored to tears with theory.  And God knows that TK's handle on theory is somewhat tenuous.  But I've attempted to answer some of this nonsense in this link.  And I feel that I deserve some hearing to discount the entirely spurious objections that picowatt and TK are posing against our thesis on this.  Also - it may at least serve to alert those of you who need it - to the absurdities of QED per TK and picowatt.

Regards,
Rosemary

Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2729.html#msg2729

And another quote:


"And while I'm at it - for picowatt's consideration.  IF my test battery outlasts the control - then I take it he realises that will FINALLY disprove his absurd interpretations of quantum theories.  And related to my knowledge of electronics.  It is SPARCE - AT BEST.  But I am NOT talking electronics in this really simple apparatus.  I am TALKING PHYSICS PRINCIPLES - taht subject that they dare not discuss except as it relates to TK's somewhat ridiculous version of QED.  He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance.  I've already tested this.  WE WILL.  BY A LONG SHOT.
"

I do not pretend to be a physicist.  Personally, I have never believed any particles actually exist.  Years from now our understanding may change drastically with regard to the present models.  Until then, we use what works and follows the math.

But I have not discussed physics, I have discussed electronics.  Whether an electron actually exists or not, or whether it should be called something else is not the point.  The current models work very well in predicting the behaviour of something we call or visualize as an electron as it is manipulated through semiconductors and conductors.

An expert in the field of electronics need no more be a phycist than a plumber needs to be a chemist or auto mechanic a metallurgist.  And I dare say that most physicists, chemists and metallurgists would be terrible electronic circuit designers, plumbers, and mechanics.  All are separate disciplines that take years to become proficient at.

You attempt to somehow apply physics to explain an electronic circuit that is fully understood and obeys the present understanding of electronics as if there is some great mystery regarding its operation.

Everything you have thus far presented can and has been fully explained regarding how and why the circuit operates.  Even your negative mean power measurement has been explained.

As to whether or not the circuit is somehow more efficient than any other circuit, no data has thus far been presented which would support any anomalous action.

Possibly you should acquire a bit of humility and just accept that regarding the electronic operation of your circuit, there are plenty of people around that fully understand its operation.  Quit your constant arguing as if you are more expert than they in a field which you have very little knowledge and attempt to learn.

As to whether your circuit is somehow more efficient than one would expect it to be, present your data.

       



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4206 on: July 20, 2012, 09:33:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4207 on: July 20, 2012, 09:47:42 PM »
Why doesn't she just take one of my videos.... How Mosfets Work 2 and 3 for example.... and tell us, by references to timestamps, just what is wrong, what I am not understanding or explaining correctly, or how it does not apply to the understanding of her circuit?

She cannot, that's why. What I show in that one video alone is completely incompatible with her understanding of her circuit and electronics in general, much less the foundations of electronics in QED. She cannot refute it, she cannot explain it under her "thesis"... so she must ignore it, or call it fake. (Which latter amuses me greatly.)

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

Or... for a slightly more complex example..... this one offers plenty of grist for Ainslie's fantasy mill. Go ahead, Anslie.... watch it, and tear it up, with timestamp references.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4208 on: July 21, 2012, 04:02:50 AM »
Guys, I am getting more than a little tired of the repeated efforts of TK and Picowatt et al ... you notice how their names are perpetually 'linked' to this common cause ... take the trouble to post over select passages of my own post.  They dare not simply post the link.  Lest you read the whole of the post and not those selected passages where the sense is explained in the balance of that unpublished post.  This is required for that 'perpetual spin' and is part of their propagandising techniques.  In my defense therefore, let me post over the WHOLE of that post.    I've posted it over in a couple of posts for easy reading.  Here it is...

"And this Guys is about the perpetual 'spin' advanced by picowatt and TK...et al.

The foundation of Quantum theories is based on a simple premise.  Excepting the photon, everything that can be known and measured about stable particles, their spin, their mass, their charge, is done when they are in an artificial state of relative rest.  With regards to the electron - in it's natural state this particle is never in a state of rest.  Therefore no-one knows what the electron is doing in it's orbital state.  Not its velocity - nor its mass - nor strictly speaking - even its location within the atom.  All predictions of an electron's action within an atomic abode are based on statistical PROBABILITY.  It is a study of 'likely outcomes' and it is derived in precisely the same way that our statisticians predict outcomes.  It's a dependable prediction - on a general or quantum basis.  It is never applicable on a particular basis.  Hence the term QUANTUM.  What picowatt and TK are doing, poor sods, is to try and advance that quantum physics knows PRECISELY what is going on.  Notwithstanding the acknowledged shortfall in quantum physics where all QED experts first and foremost - ACKNOWLEDGE this impossibility as the FOUNDATION STONE of all quantum studies.  The experts can and will ONLY give a prediction based on probability. They freely confess that cannot be precise.  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle EXPLAINS PRECISELY THIS PROBLEM.


NOW.  TK is trying to describe the 'domino effect' of electrons as the transfer of current flow.  On a step by step basis - which is the only justifiable explanation of current flow.  And this because it is also the ONLY model that acknowledges that there are no extra electrons introduced that are extraneous to that electric circuitry.  But here we have the first problem.  The 'step by step' model or analogy has nothing to do with Quantum physics.  It's something else.  Possibly it's philosophy.  But then it's really bad philosophy.  It's trying to explain the particular by reference to the general.  That step by step - that domino effect - is TK's analogy to the person who by entering a room then reaches the tipping point - that maximum occupancy.  Whereupon he proposes that another occupant then leaves that room through a back door - in a precise and equal exchange.  BUT.  The thing is this.  In order for the one person to 'come in' and for another to 'go out' takes a measurable quotient of time.  And it's that time that our physicists have measured that it takes one electron to replace another electron in its proposed passage from one outer energy level of one atom to the outer energy level of another atom.  IF this were the explanation for the continuous nature of current flow  - THEN - it would take about 20 minutes for those electrons to shuffle through your average 2 - 4 meters of wire from the switch to the appliance - before that appliance would get the benefit of that 'exchange'.  Again.  It would take 20 minutes from the moment that you throw the switch 'on' to getting your kettle to start cooking - your light to light - your fan to turn - and so on.

continued / ...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4208 on: July 21, 2012, 04:02:50 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4209 on: July 21, 2012, 04:03:23 AM »
Continued /...

What TK and picowatt are trying to infer is that they can explain what the electron is doing on that 'particular' basis.  It is a question that our greats themselves - those pioneers of Quantum physics - have declined to answer.  It is a question - nonetheless - that they and other electrical engineers have attempted to explain - are attempting to explain and will, no doubt CONTINUE to attempt to explain.  But to do so they first need to reach into an abuse of philosophical argument that has everything to do with wild speculation and nothing to do with logic or science. Again.  It has never been PROVED.  This model ERRS.  Radically.  It is NOT APPLICABLE TO OUR MEASURED EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. On the contrary.  The experimental evidence REFUTES this model.
And yet, for some reason - picowatt and TK prefer it that I rely on their speculations related to this when our Greats themselves have declined to speculate.  And they seem to see fit to criticise ME - for not following their argument.  I will not.  And would caution you all - you SHOULD not.  It is a spurious argument based on spurious premises - that get progressively more absurd as they get more and more embroiled.  It is an example of the courtiers to the Emperor who flatter him and themselves that they can see the colours in the Emperor's New Cloak.IT IS UTTERLY AND RIDICULOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE.

And while I'm at it - for picowatt's consideration.  IF my test battery outlasts the control - then I take it he realises that will FINALLY disprove his absurd interpretations of quantum theories.  And related to my knowledge of electronics.  It is SPARCE - AT BEST.  But I am NOT talking electronics in this really simple apparatus.  I am TALKING PHYSICS PRINCIPLES - taht subject that they dare not discuss except as it relates to TK's somewhat ridiculous version of QED.  He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance.  I've already tested this.  WE WILL.  BY A LONG SHOT.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Added
What our thesis does is this.  It DEFINES the material property of charge in line with Faraday's Lines of Force.  It is a self-consistent argument.  It points to an energy potential that has been OVERLOOKED - to the entire benefit of our energy monopolists.  To forfeit this model and replace it with that 'field study' will FOREVER leave us free of our grid locked dependencies.  It is NO WONDER that picowatt and TK and 'The Boss' and Sean - et al - RELY on that ridiculous variation to Quantum Physics.  I only caution you all to be alert to this."
 
Do take the trouble to read it.  It's critical if you're going to fully appreciate that 'AGENDA' that they have. Regards,Rosemary

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4210 on: July 21, 2012, 04:07:50 AM »
Hey Rosemary you little mute doll:

Here is a comment made to me very recently by one of the regular members of the forums:

Quote
I am sorry to see you are still in the Darkness, my friend...
 
 The Clip will be taken down...over my DEAD BODY...My Dear Friend...I have ENOUGH Scientific Proof of what am posting here, My Science, is NOT about ANCIENT LAWS PUSHING...Wrong Models, Wrong Concepts, Mutilated Science...
 
 I am not just a You Tube amateur video maker ...I am a Scientist.
 
 If You do not like it, just don't watch it, am not forcing anyone to...

Considering this particular day today, how do you feel about threatening to reveal people's identities without their consent?

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4210 on: July 21, 2012, 04:07:50 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4211 on: July 21, 2012, 04:18:05 AM »
Quote
He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance.  I've already tested this.  WE WILL.  BY A LONG SHOT.

That's really confidence building.  The experimenter knows what the results of her experiments are going to be before even performing them.

Rosemary, if you actually try to perform some experiments by yourself my suggestion to everyone is to not offer her one single iota of help.  It should be a real comedy and a complete shambles.

Little Miss Mosfet is going to test a MOSFET circuit when she doesn't even know how a MOSFET works.
Little Miss Mosfet is going to test a MOSFET circuit when she doesn't even know how a MOSFET works.
Little Miss Mosfet is going to test a MOSFET circuit when she doesn't even know how a MOSFET works.

Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want...
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don't bother, they're here.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4212 on: July 21, 2012, 04:35:02 AM »
Hey Rosemary you little mute doll:

Here is a comment made to me very recently by one of the regular members of the forums:

Considering this particular day today, how do you feel about threatening to reveal people's identities without their consent?

MileHigh

I've answered you on my troll thread MileHigh.  That's where this subject BELONGS.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2732.html#msg2732

Rosie Pose

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4213 on: July 21, 2012, 04:37:05 AM »
Ainslie, take that one video, Mosfets How Do They Work Parts 2 and 3, watch it, and tell us specifically WHERE and HOW I am wrong about anything in it. Explain the phenomena illustrated using your "thesis" and what you think you know about physics.


You cannot.

For that matter, explain what I've been working on for the past several weeks: the wireless transmission of power... REAL power.... using methods and techniques and calculations and measurements that you claim are wrong. How, then, am I doing it? Do you think that I am "faking" what you see in this video?

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

Or this one, made just a few minutes ago?

http://youtu.be/MK90_CbnAeY

You are so far behind it would be pitiful if it wasn't so pathetic.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4214 on: July 21, 2012, 04:42:15 AM »
Ainslie, take that one video, Mosfets How Do They Work Parts 2 and 3, watch it, and tell us specifically WHERE and HOW I am wrong about anything in it. Explain the phenomena illustrated using your "thesis" and what you think you know about physics.


You cannot.

INDEED I cannot.  Nor will I.  I no longer bother with those videos of yours TK.  I prefer to be taught by articulate and intelligent members such as Poynty or Groundloop - or even directly from our Greats.  You are utterly INCAPABLE of teaching anything at all. 

Rosie Pose

 

OneLink