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 Posts: 897298
  • *Total Topics: 15811
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1605662 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4830 on: September 14, 2012, 08:56:14 PM »
OK, maybe it's time for a quick review.

Tar Baby is constructed with the exact circuit and specified components used, or rather claimed to have been used, by the NERDs in the daft manuscripts.

Tar Baby produces the same feedback oscillations and the same negative mean power product as Ainslie's original NERD circuit.

Tar Baby's batteries do discharge.

Ainslie has sent her own exact device off to an independent lab in the USA for testing. This lab also found that the mean negative power product was easy to reproduce, but that their batteries also discharged. They sent the apparatus back with some additional components and suggestions for Ainslie to test. So far she has not complied, and has not made public the details of the lab's report, except to admit that their batteries did discharge and that her major claim was disconfirmed.

Ainslie's daft manuscripts exist in many multiple "edits" on various internet sites and these versions do not agree. There are discrepancies involving claimed power dissipation, battery capacity, circuit behaviour, schematics used, equipment used, and lack of correspondence between the theoretical explanations given and the actual circuit's wiring.

Anslie perpetrated a deliberate fraud and deception, from the March 2011 date of the release of the video demonstration of her device, until late April 2011 when the actual wiring schematic used was revealed by .99.... and she has recently expressed regret that it was revealed "so soon"; in other words, she deliberately lied and carried on an internet discussion of over 400 forum comments concerning a circuit that was NOT actually used, for almost a month, and sought to continue the deception longer.

Ainslie has refused access to her original data and spreadsheets. She has attempted to keep secret her scope shots, scattering them about over years and multiple forum threads and even multiple forums instead of publishing them in one easy place. She has refused to cooperate with investigators, instead frequently descending into her sarcastic and hypocritical personal insulting and denigrations whenever she is faced with hard questions for her to answer. She has repeatedly shown her inability to do or understand even the simplest mathematics, she has no calculus, and she does not bother to do the simplest fact-checking of her outrageous claims, for example calling a date in July first a "solstice" and then an "equinox", or claiming that "there is no such animal as inductive reactance".  She has made dozens if not hundreds of similar, absurd, easily refutable claims over the years and I have most of them, and their refutations, recorded in my comprehensive Ainslie database collection.

The earlier Quantum COP>17 circuit has been thoroughly investigated years ago and all work by several workers published publicly. Yet Ainslie deliberately, overtly and specifically refused to make her current builder, gmeast, aware of this prior work, all of which is easily accessible in the public record.

Gmeast rejected the NERD circuit as unworkable by inspection, I believe, and decided to work on the earlier Quantum circuit with all its flaws.

In spite of this, gmeast went on to build and test the COP>17 circuit.... and found, from the beginning, that there were many problems. The 555 timer as published does not work as claimed. The circuit as published includes no recirculation diode. The circuit as published, when driven at the specified parameters (rather than the flipped, nearly always on duty cycle produced by the published 555 circuit) does not produce the substantial heating claimed, or in fact any significant heat at a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle. So gmeast substantially altered the circuit to get some kind of heat result. He uses a gate driver, a different kind of load, a recirculation diode, a much longer ON duty cycle (25 percent instead of the claimed 3.7 percent of the Quantum article) and operates at a higher frequency than Ainslie's Quantum report. And he is making basic errors in his power computations still. Using his reported numbers and making the calculations correctly, his device is not achieving OU performance at all, much less the COP >17 claimed by Ainslie for the original experiment. And his batteries are running down nevertheless.

In short, every major claim of Ainslie in both the Quantum article and the two NERD daft manuscripts has been refuted or shown to be spurious, by several different workers and laboratories on _Both Sides_ of the issue. Supporters have been unable to reproduce her claims and in fact have found that they are impossible using the circuits and protocols described. These refutations have happened with Ainslie's very own apparatus, with other, identical apparatus, with and without Ainslie's personal guidance, and all around the world. Nobody has been able to produce any real experimental support for any of Ainslie's claims EXCEPT that it is possible to make an oscilloscope compute a negative mean power product when certain basic precautions are not taken to assure uncontaminated signal data. This has been confirmed many times, in simulations and in hardware, by many people and there is even a pocket "OU" demonstrator that runs without batteries.... the Altoid... that can be used to demonstrate this negative mean power measurement, and a negatively accumulating energy integral measurement, anytime anywhere on demand. The _measurements_ are easy to replicate, and the meaning of them is well understood... and it's not "free energy" or overunity performance.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4830 on: September 14, 2012, 08:56:14 PM »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4831 on: September 14, 2012, 09:06:45 PM »
Seriously? They've kicked you out completely? What an abrupt change in her attitude.
Yep.

Offline DreamThinkBuild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4832 on: September 15, 2012, 12:15:01 AM »
Hi Poynt,

That is just wrong.  >:( After putting your time and effort in trying to help her she just blocks anybody that poses a different view than her own.

I just want to say I appreciate all the hard work you did trying to get to the bottom of the circuit. You truly are a professional, being able to have the patience to stick through this long.

Soon GMEast will say one wrong thing or a number won't match and he will be kicked out next.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4832 on: September 15, 2012, 12:15:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4833 on: September 15, 2012, 12:53:41 AM »
Thanks for the comments DreamThinkBuild.

No one will ever likely be kicked from Rose's playground as long as they post "hopeful" tidbits or are neutral. I was the "neutral" posing questions to the "hopeful", and the "Admin" didn't like that. It's understandable of course, because gmeast was beginning to have uncontrolled fits and I don't think Rose wanted to lose him. After all, he represents 50% of the regular posters there now that I'm gone.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4834 on: September 15, 2012, 01:28:39 AM »
After all, he represents 50% of the regular posters there now that I'm gone.


Well using standard mathematics, perhaps so. But with Greg's improved variant, you in fact represent 217.9000452% or 23.01551% depending.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4834 on: September 15, 2012, 01:28:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4835 on: September 15, 2012, 11:26:55 AM »
so... it is requested that poynty does not post in greg's thread.
poynty ignores the request and warnings of the admin.
poynty gets the consequence.
poynty then cries persecution.

yet at poynty's forum when you disobey the requests of the admin you get the consequence... and that's all fine and dandy, justified and all.  ::)

your hypocrisy nourishes me...

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4836 on: September 15, 2012, 03:14:38 PM »
Quote
Dear Poynty

I may have, inadvertently, and indirectly and entirely unintentionally - 'banned' you.  If so - abject apologies.  All I meant to manage was to prevent you posting any more on Greg's thread. 

I think I've corrected the error - and if this means that you can - in fact - post on Greg's thread - then I've STILL not managed what I meant to achieve.  But I'll leave it to Greg to monitor his thread.  I see he's now 'enabled' as a global moderator.

Please respect this Poynty Point.  More than welcome to argue your work with me.  But leave Greg out of this.  He's far better qualified than you are - and is also in the rather enviable position of being able to comment from EMPIRICAL evidence.  Which is something that you've yet to achieve.   And may I add - just for the purposes of this argument - that last equation of yours is a great deal of nonsense.  But if you want to try and justify it - then do it on one of my threads or even on your own.  Greg is actually doing some much needed WORK and I'm sure can manage this better without distractions.  He's well qualified to determine if his results are right or wrong - and I'm entirely satisfied that if he finds error he's got both the required integrity and acumen to acknowledge it. I'm drawing the distinction here that he argues his case and admits his errors when and if there are any - where you simply WITHDRAW from an argument under the spurious pretext of feeling 'insulted'?  Not a strong argument Poynty Point - with respect. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.=

 ::)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4836 on: September 15, 2012, 03:14:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4837 on: September 15, 2012, 06:25:36 PM »
Awww..... she doesn't have anyone to argue with any more, and she misses being able to talk down to someone above her.

Man, if that's "respect"...... what does disrespect look like in Ainslie-speak?


May I please have permission to calculate Tar Baby's input power the same way Gmeast does for his circuit?

Because when I do it and find 3 or 4 x OU, they will surely tell ME what is wrong with the method.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4838 on: September 15, 2012, 07:16:47 PM »
How many eggs per carton does it take to make a 3-egg omelette? Let's see.

There are 12 eggs per carton of eggs, so there are 12/3 = 4 of the 3-egg omelettes in a carton.

But I'm only going to make one omelette, so I'll just use 1/4 of the carton, iow  12/4 = 3 eggs per carton, averaged across the whole carton of 12.

Now, my intuition and instincts tell me that, since I'm only using 1/4 of the carton, I'm using 25 percent, and not using 75 percent of the carton. And 75 / 25 is 3.  So I should divide my "3 eggs" by 3, which equals 1.

Therefore it only takes one egg to make a three-egg omelette.

Oh.... wait, silly me, that whole 75/25 thing is wrong, because if I take a whole thing and divide it up properly into quarters I should wind up dividing by 4, not 3. So my corrected value is now 3 eggs / 4, which equals 0.75 egg.

So it actually only takes 0.75 egg to make a three-egg omelette, and I have an overunity ratio COPegg of 3.0/0.75 = 4 !

And an RMSegg calculation yields a similar result !!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4838 on: September 15, 2012, 07:16:47 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4839 on: September 15, 2012, 07:34:15 PM »
 :o

 8)

Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4840 on: September 15, 2012, 08:16:43 PM »
Quote: "Dear Poynty...  He's far better qualified than you are..."

I have an overunity ratio COPegg of 3.0/0.75 = 4 !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4840 on: September 15, 2012, 08:16:43 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4841 on: September 15, 2012, 08:18:52 PM »
How many eggs per carton does it take to make a 3-egg omelette? Let's see.


You can't make an Orbette without breaking kegs. Hold on, wrong free-energy device...

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4842 on: September 15, 2012, 11:12:13 PM »
Hi all,

Well I see Rosemary's forum with her cave clan has been are still in the dark clueless of whats in front of their face. This is of course in context is the "Ainslie" language and grammar thats used to show the professionalism of her clan organization with the hundreds of members contributing daily to the scientific information being posted.  :P

These are of course from what we're lead to believe by Rosemary are the collaborators, engineers and academics that back the findings of new "new" claimed COP>INFINITY device giving their 100% support and agreement in the findings without argument ...... oops ...... I suppose that these are hidden postings at her forum/blog to hide their identity as been done for the past ten years everywhere else.  ???

I am shocked that the design engineers at "International Rectifier" who invented the IRFPG50 Hexfet Mosfet back in the 1970's, doing years of product testing and evaluation to start production and publish the technical data sheet for consumers, that everyone employed there concealed the "OU" benefits and didn't cash out on the component properties even to this day .... oops .... thats Rosemary's belief ....  :o

These devices of Rosemary's with less than a dozen electronic components and shes been arguing the same OU claims .... she must be proud to be smarter than the engineers at International Rectifier.  ::)

FTC
 ;)

Offline orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4843 on: September 15, 2012, 11:46:47 PM »
Ainslie is the Kathy Bates of free energy. Be careful what you measure, gmeast.


edit: grammar

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4844 on: September 16, 2012, 12:33:28 AM »
What, you don't believe me, that an RMS egg calculation also yields "similar" overunity omelettes?

There are 4, 3-egg omelettes in a carton, for a "duty cycle" of 1/4 or 0.25 or 25 percent. And the EggsRMS value is given by Eggs x sqrt(duty cycle). Right? And similarly, OmelettesRMS is Omelettes x sqrt(duty cycle). And of course, Eggsavg is given by CartonRMS/OmeletteRMS. Right?

so we have

CartonRMS = Eggs x sqrt(0.25 carton) = 12 x 0.5 = 6 eggs
therefore eggs =  CartonRMS / OmeletesRMS = 6 / (4 x sqrt(0.25)) = 6 / 2 = 3

But only one quarter of the carton will be used, so my intuition and instinct tells me to divide that result by 3, no, sorry, silly me, it's a 25 percent duty cycle, so divide by 4, lol even harder:

Therefore it takes 3/4 = 0.75 eggs to make a 3-egg omelette. QED. A massive overunity egg ratio of 3/0.75 = 4.

By two different measurement methods, all mathematically correct. Right?



 

OneLink