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: 522121
  • *Total Topics: 15554
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1461200 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4935 on: October 21, 2012, 02:17:28 PM »
Ainslie, you are really overstepping the boundaries. I am preserving these libels for all and sundry to see. Beware: anyone who gets involved with Rosemary Ainslie, the ultimate paranoid deluded lying internet troll, will eventually experience her bitter bile and libels.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4935 on: October 21, 2012, 02:17:28 PM »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4936 on: October 21, 2012, 05:23:03 PM »
From Rosemary's sandbox:
Quote
Meanwhile - as mentioned - we've all of us learned to keep our numbers OUT of the public eye.  This will only change when we FINALLY get accreditation that is well supported by industry - and by the press.  Which is where our efforts are currently directed.

One must be optimistic and expect Rosemary to adhere to her own self-imposed conditions. If she does, her latest nonsense will never be seen in public. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely that any accredited engineer would give her "work" his stamp of approval, i.e. that they would endorse her ridiculous claims or erroneous measurements.

Good on you Rosemary! ;) This is definitely a VERY good thing for the FE community at large.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4937 on: October 21, 2012, 06:46:54 PM »
The woman is a parody of herself.

Her defence being the "veracity of her numbers".... what an amazing joke! I have preserved in my database MANY of Ainslie's little "veracity with numbers" games: her whacky arithmetic errors that show how little attention she paid in school; the insane calculations based on assumptions gone awry and mistaken conceptions of power and energy units; the absurd claims without any reality checking at all like the claim to have dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes, or boiling water when no water was boiled, and many more.
Perhaps she refers to the "negative wattage" that is so easy to measure when the measurement is done improperly. Well.... if that is newsworthy, then my and .99's Altoid circuit is headline news since it makes the same negative wattage and needs NO BATTERY AT ALL to run, powering a load and making all the negative wattage one cares to measure. As has been explained to her many times in many ways, her negative mean power measurement is well understood, it DOES NOT INVOLVE INJECTION OF HEFTY WATTS FROM A FUNCTION GENERATOR as the continuously lying Ainslie now claims, and means only that her measurements are not measuring what she claims, and evidently believes, that they are measuring. After all...... the exact same waveforms that produce Ainslie's erroneous measurements have been produced in MANY SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE FGs AT ALL, like Altoid, like Tar Baby with DC bias drive, TB with several different 555 timer drives, and in .99's sims. Ainslie simply lies here, to her newcomer AlienSigns and to all who read her forum. See the excerpt from an exceptionally mendacious post of hers, below.

Not only that, but I have also saved plenty of proofs that she has indeed claimed a bit more than just "measurements". She entered her absurd kludge of a circuit into the running for three different Overunity Prizes, remember? Monetary prizes, based on her claim of overunity performance. Not just some anomalous measurements that needed to be explained. COP > INFINITY.... remember that? I sure do, even if the Red Queen Ainslie, Little Miss Mendacious Mosfet, doesn't.

I fervently hope that Brian Little, whoever he is, gets wind of the insane abuses and ridiculous claims and libels coming from this vile and bilious Ainslie wench, and does take the kind of action that the madwoman so ardently seeks.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4937 on: October 21, 2012, 06:46:54 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4938 on: October 21, 2012, 06:57:24 PM »
Are "allegations " of homosexuality a common way of attempting to undermine people in South Africa? Im clearly out of touch, but I can scarcely believe anyone believes its a facet of someones personality that's worth mentioning.

And Rosemary; you have my contact details; I have a large publicly available gallery of screenshots of your risible experimentation, and I state that you're a fool, a fraud, and a liar.

Now what have your legal team got for me, love?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4939 on: October 21, 2012, 08:36:20 PM »
She can't even keep her own story straight, as we've known for some time. In a post earlier she "claims" that she hasn't claimed anything beyond some _measurements_ that need explaining. But here she claims very clearly to have proof of exceeding the "unity barrier". Where is this proof? There isn't any. Even her own data, as shown in her own scopeshots, show that her claims are false.

Isn't it interesting, in the face of her accusations, that the Truth is that WE are the ones who made her scopeshot data available in one place, that WE are the ones who pointed out the various errors in her mendacious daft manuscripts, that WE are the ones who publicly discuss and post our data and research for all to see without restriction...... that WE have publicly replicated and reported on all of Ainslie's measurements and WE have explained them IN PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE and to reproduce at will...

While on the other hand, Ainslie has lied, concealed, obfuscated, selected, hidden and falsified, and even today refuses to share her data publicly.... and has missed her own deadlines for public posting of test results many times..... yet she has the overweening arrogance and lying mendacity to assert that it is WE who are trying to "keep AWAY from public knowledge" anything about Ainslie's fiasco of prevarication and delusion. It is Yet another Ains-lie that is easily proven wrong by a simple search through her own posts.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4939 on: October 21, 2012, 08:36:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4940 on: October 22, 2012, 03:46:19 PM »
Preserved for posterity.

Note the amazing hypocrisy and overweening arrogance of this deluded old woman. Not only does she lie, misrepresent, misidentify, insult and wheedle, she pretends to instruct! When she herself has been the perpetrator of the greatest fraud ever to grace these pages, surpassing even MyLOW and Archer Quinn in its destructiveness.

Ainslie, to address just a single point in your calumny of prevarication preserved below: I don't know about Brian Little, but I personally have indeed referred to your "papers".... really daft manuscripts.... many times, with chapter and verse. Several of us have pointed out discrepancies in several of the figures presented in both manuscripts. The Circuit Diagrams in the two manuscripts do not match either each other, nor the actual circuit used in the reported experiments. Several claims that were completely impossible were made, like the 5.9 megaJoules claim. The "explanation" cartoons in the second daft manuscript do not correspond to ANY of the claimed circuits actually used, and so cannot be explanations of anything. The two "papers" in their official "publications" on Rossi's JNP do not even agree in their schematics given, and the reports in the manuscripts do not agree with the better, real-time reports made by YOU, Ainslie, in your blogs at the time the experiments were done. I have referred to your "papers" first and foremost many times and you have NEVER resolved the discrepancies. Oh.... yes.... in one of your "edits" you have removed, without comment or explanation, the 5.9 megaJoules claim.... but it persists in the "official" publication still.

In short, you lie with every post you make, on your own forum just as you have done here.

Not only that, but every time you refer to me as "little", as "Brian Little" (or "Bryan"), as homosexual like some of your best friends, or refer to a "pickle".... you are making yourself even more of a complete and utter laughingstock than you have already been.

Can you just imagine the response of a journal editor, when I point them to your little forum post below?

And how do these cartoons from your daft manuscript explain anything.... when they don't correspond to your actual circuit but rather to the circuit you THOUGHT you were using.....? Explain that. You cannot, because you are such a joke you don't even see that your own data and "explanations" are contradictory.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4941 on: October 23, 2012, 04:52:05 PM »
The idiocy from the amazing lunatic Rosemary Ainslie continues. When will the woman learn? She continues her systematic "expose" of her imaginary monsters and her delusions.

And she continues her lies and false accusations, as usual without giving any support or reference. She attributes to Bryan Little, through TinselKoala, an "open admission of strategies".
Quote
What's particularly sad is the open admission of  their strategies.  Bryan - writing as Tinsel Koala - freely admits to his intention to deceive the public.  He has also - openly - discussed the strategy of treating me with utter disrespect - basically as this should have served to destroy my own credibility.  As mentioned - thankfully - he's overplayed his hand.  He's got the bite of a rabid rottweiler - but  he's also got that level of judgement and constraint.   

I have no idea what Bryan Little might or might not have "admitted freely"..... but the assertion that I have admitted any such intention to deceive the public is a typical AINS-LIE. She cannot provide support for this lying claim of hers, because it is just that: a lie. I have never "admitted" such an intention, nor have I attempted to perform any such deception. But I will again point out the many egregious deceptions engaged in by ROSEMARY AINSLIE HERSELF. One only needs to recall the DEMO VIDEO, which she at first tried to claim that she didn't even post. From the March 22 date of its posting until the April 18 date of .99's reveal of the actual schematic used in the circuit, ROSEMARY AINSLIE engaged in a deliberate program of deception and outright lying, for the over 400 forum posts and replies in the discussion of the circuit made during that time period. There is also the continuing deception that she engages in over the nature and quality of her data. Ainslie is a liar plain and simple, a severely deluded one at that, and I WELCOME the exposure of any and all TRUTH in the matter of Ainslie and her claims.

However, that TRUTH will not be forthcoming from Ainslie, as her continuing pattern of delusion, mendacity, deception and prevarication.... continues without restraint or abatement.


Who is this Bryan Little, anyway? I'd like to inform him about the criminal libels that Ainslie is committing against his good name, and see what his response might be.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4941 on: October 23, 2012, 04:52:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4942 on: October 23, 2012, 07:25:31 PM »

TK & all


That stuff of mine you refer to on your Oct. 14 post was a long time ago.  I, for one, am very willing to admit that measurement is HARD to do.  If everyone would feel better if I admitted publicly to have made some errors in analysis, well so be it.  I boo boo'd! But it was because I was caught up in the excitement of the potential for this technology.  OH NO! WHAT? you mean I'M HUMAN? Will any of you here claim the same? NOT!


One other valuable lesson I have learned is there is NO GOOD WAY to accurately measure nano-second transients ... meters, scopes, analyzers or whatever.  So I have adopted more practical ways to determine COP ... and it is only specific to this technology (maybe).  I simply use a control (precision resistor), draw down the battery bank, graph the results V vs T.  Then I run the circuit, record V vs T(eq), run another eq dt calibration on RL, graph it then compare the two graphs.  The results from this are most telling. The only thing I use a scope for now is relative work ... tuning minimums and maximums and other setup activities.


I have to agree with some other comments regarding the claim of COP>17, etc.  I am disappointed that I have not seen these magnitudes, but ANYTHING COP>1 is simply awesome.  I made a recent post on the FG thread of Rosie's site. It's interesting.


Oh, I am NOT obligated to make any apology to anyone or to admit anything to any one person in particular.  I stated what my errors were on Rosie' site, but no one listened.  That's your guy's problem, not mine .... do you hear that poynt99?  The only reason I did not address you personally on the 'error thing' was because of your arrogance and narcissism.  TK, I have no need nor desire to refute anyone.  You guys can continue on the road you presently travel, I'm confidently moving forward with this.


I have the validating evidence I need justifying this technology and am now aiming at a clearer understanding of it, it's odd nature and eventually a scale-up effort and implementation.


Thanks.  Regards

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4943 on: October 23, 2012, 09:09:41 PM »
You do not have the evidence that is convincing enough for a scientific report or even an article in an IEEE journal. However, your post seems to indicate that you might be willing to communicate on real issues concerning your present work.

It would be nice to see a specific acknowledgement of your specific error of using the duty cycle twice, so that we could know that you understand fully, even though you no longer wish to use the Ainslie-approved "vi dt" method. Actually what she seems to mean is the computation of the time integral of an instantaneous power curve to give the total energy transferred over the time of integration. Which method is totally correct if the input measurements are valid and represent what they are supposed to represent.

Your calorimetry is a good effort for a first attempt. But it is fatally flawed and you could easily do much better. Mile High, in some earlier posts, gave some excellent suggestions for accurate calorimetry and power dissipation measurements at a load resistance. An honest and sincere researcher would not be happy with a single result such as the one you are reporting, but would seek confirmation by as many different methods as possible. In addition, the chosen methodology must itself be validated by using it on a known, underunity system. Perhaps you'd like to try it on one of my systems, and see if you get the expected underunity result.

Using the methodology you describe, in combination with the false precision you often report, an error of 20 percent is well within the realm of possibility. Much more so than a real "overunity" result. In addition, as you would see if you had been paying attention to my demonstrations, the mere fact that you can dissipate more power in the load using a pulsed drive instead of a straight, load-resistance-determined DC drive, or conversely get the same apparent dissipated power in the load using apparently less input with a pulsed drive.... this mere fact is not so remarkable and can be reproduced much more easily than you are doing, and more dramatically as well, by lighting an ordinary tungsten filament incandescent light bulb twice as brightly as "normal", as I show by several different methods in some of my videos.

I'm glad that you are acknowledging that you are seeing nothing even close to what Ainslie claimed. We note that your circuit incorporates many elements that were not evident in her original Quantum circuit, and we also note that your experiments with her _actual_ reported circuit did not pan out so well.

Your circuit incorporates a mosfet driver, a correctly functioning PWM pulse generator, a different dutycycle and operating frequency, and a recirculation diode. Ainslie's reported circuit simply does not work as she claimed, neither as a COP>17 device nor as a heater at the stated duty cycle.

Your circuit is teaching you a lot about power measurements, and the better you get, the more you learn.... and the closer you get to unity performance. Do you dare to continue, and perform proper calorimetric power measurements of the sort MileHigh suggested, and to validate your methodology on a known non-OU system, like an ordinary high-efficiency PWM motor driver driving a resistive load? Note that your comparison to a DC-powered load is only half of the "control" experiment. You need to perform the entire control experiment: You are comparing your system to a DC drive, using the Same resistive load, and you must also compare a known, non-OU pulsed power system to a DC drive using the Same resistive load, in order to validate your overall methodology.

Now, on another topic: What do YOU, personally, Gmeast, think of Ainslie's current campaign of libel and false accusation against Bryan Little? Do you approve of her lashing out in that manner at someone who cannot even defend himself, calling him a misogynistic psychopathic homosexual narcissistic sociopath, accusing him of seeking to hide the truth, accusing him of breaking into her computers and causing her to beef up her household security, which is tantamount to accusing him of perpetrating her recent breakins? What do you think of all this? Have I really earned this from her, by pointing out her demonstrated and continual lies and errors and her insults and unsupported claims? Has Bryan Little earned any of this?
What is your honest opinion, Gmeast?



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4943 on: October 23, 2012, 09:09:41 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4944 on: October 24, 2012, 01:21:45 AM »
You do not have the evidence that is convincing enough for a scientific report or even an article in an IEEE journal. However, your post seems to indicate that you might be willing to communicate on real issues concerning your present work.
...................................


I know it's not totally convincing yet, but it's convincing enough for me to continue.  I haven't shared all of my results, and I don't intend to.  And at present I don't care about a scientific report in an IEEE journal.  And what do you mean by "real issues"? I have landed on a comfortable platform for testing and evaluation.  It suits me fine for now.  I weighed the risks of posting on your site and came up neutral.  It's of no benefit to me but some others might benefit from this exchange.  I must say you still are prone to ripping someone in the name of getting the last word.  That's a character flaw you must live with.  I don't intend to address any specific errors ... that's in the past.  I'm moving forward, I suggest you find something constructive to do with your time and intelligence. Assassination doesn't suit or serve anyone. [size=78%] [/size]

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4945 on: October 24, 2012, 04:36:24 AM »
Hey Gmeast

You should hang out here for a bit and go over some of these things with TK.

It doesnt have to be a slapfest. ;]

I can post links to how I defended Rose for the longest, even though I didnt know if her claims were right or wrong. I just felt that here she is, most always nice as pie and very friendly with quite a vocabulary, indicative of more smarts than me, but getting seemingly beat up by some of these guys and I just went off.  As it went along, I was paying attention to TKs vids and posts, to find what he was doing that had shown that Roses circuit cannot be OU as she claimed. As it went along, these guys 'really' figured out why the circuit oscillates, and so many details that 'are' correct vs her analysis, of which Rose seems to know nothing about nor cares. So I became engaged in watching and learning from them.  its all here on these pages
Rose did not like this apparently as I appeared to be in agreeance with a few details.
She turned on me like a wild cat after it took the food from your fingers. I queried as to what here issue was with me, but it just got worse and worse and the things she said of me, well you can read it and find out for yourself. Its all on these pages. ;]

That was a turning point for me. Just guess how I felt. All the attacks I put on these guys, just to protect 'my friend' whether my friend was right or wrong.

As time goes by, she really is showing her true colors, and it isnt the resistor color code, of which I doubt she knows.. Lets see, bad boys  our young girls but violet gives willingly.    Throw any resistor at me and I see the numbers. Like learning a different language that becomes normal. Very basics stuff. But from what I see in Roses posts from then on, her technical ability and knowledge, most of it is wiki quotes along with clear misunderstandings of most of it. She tends to learn some things these guys had shown her and then turns on a dime with tons of crappy posts.

Without really knowing what is going on, it might seem like these guys are just bullying her. Well my one friend from Fizzx.org from last I heard, still gets  the worst of the worst emails from her. Im very relieved that I dont have that problem. ;] Very

Just a heads up G. Search and yee shall find, the truth.  I did. ;]  And believe me, you will too. If not now, definitely later. ::) ;)

Cheers
Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4945 on: October 24, 2012, 04:36:24 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4946 on: October 24, 2012, 05:15:35 AM »
Hey Gmeast

You should hang out here for a bit and go over some of these things with TK.

It doesnt have to be a slapfest. ;]

I can post links to how I defended Rose for the longest, even though I didnt know if her claims were right or wrong. I just felt that here she is, most always nice as pie and very friendly with quite a vocabulary, indicative of more smarts than me, but getting seemingly beat up by some of these guys and I just went off.  As it went along, I was paying attention to TKs vids and posts, to find what he was doing that had shown that Roses circuit cannot be OU as she claimed. As it went along, these guys 'really' figured out why the circuit oscillates, and so many details that 'are' correct vs her analysis, of which Rose seems to know nothing about nor cares. So I became engaged in watching and learning from them.  its all here on these pages
Rose did not like this apparently as I appeared to be in agreeance with a few details.
She turned on me like a wild cat after it took the food from your fingers. I queried as to what here issue was with me, but it just got worse and worse and the things she said of me, well you can read it and find out for yourself. Its all on these pages. ;]

That was a turning point for me. ...........................................

Cheers
Mags


Hi Mag,


Thanks for the advice.  Whatever the tools these guys used to determine that it can't work doesn't matter.  The things I've seen and tests I've performed say otherwise.  As I mentioned before, I "boo boo'd" on some calculations, so what?  I've changed my strategy and I still see potential for this.  I believe the guys here have only shown that it can't work (theoretically) just as much as Rosie has shown that it CAN work (theoretically).  Those oscillations are NOT the only defining trait of this technology. I haven't shared everything I've done nor have I shared everything I've seen.  There are probably 100 different analyses that can show why this technology CAN'T work, and all will be based on 200 year old doctrine and NO forward thinking.  I have searched for mathematical models and analyses that define the relationships between the nano-second transients, voltage, oscillations (and their harmonics) and heat, to say nothing of these things as they relate to wire made from nickel, ferro-nickel alloys, and alloys with negative temperature coefficients.  The anomalous electrical and thermal behavior of these materials when subjected to sharp voltage transients and certain frequencies is only now being acknowledged and studied in the mainstream.  What's really going on here are those 'odd' behaviors and they can't be defined by the 'old' outdated, limiting, confining rules and laws.


I'm NOT going to join the 'Club' ... and I mean the type of Club these guys are beating people like me down with,  It's NOT going to happen.  I'll still share my findings, but not here.


Regards

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4947 on: October 24, 2012, 06:17:56 AM »

Hi Mag,


Thanks for the advice.  Whatever the tools these guys used to determine that it can't work doesn't matter.  The things I've seen and tests I've performed say otherwise.  As I mentioned before, I "boo boo'd" on some calculations, so what?  I've changed my strategy and I still see potential for this.  I believe the guys here have only shown that it can't work (theoretically) just as much as Rosie has shown that it CAN work (theoretically).  Those oscillations are NOT the only defining trait of this technology. I haven't shared everything I've done nor have I shared everything I've seen.  There are probably 100 different analyses that can show why this technology CAN'T work, and all will be based on 200 year old doctrine and NO forward thinking.  I have searched for mathematical models and analyses that define the relationships between the nano-second transients, voltage, oscillations (and their harmonics) and heat, to say nothing of these things as they relate to wire made from nickel, ferro-nickel alloys, and alloys with negative temperature coefficients.  The anomalous electrical and thermal behavior of these materials when subjected to sharp voltage transients and certain frequencies is only now being acknowledged and studied in the mainstream.  What's really going on here are those 'odd' behaviors and they can't be defined by the 'old' outdated, limiting, confining rules and laws.


I'm NOT going to join the 'Club' ... and I mean the type of Club these guys are beating people like me down with,  It's NOT going to happen.  I'll still share my findings, but not here.


Regards

Hey G

No problem. Just giving a heads up.  I wont bother you again after these few things..

It wasnt the tools used. It was the circuit rose used, 'supposedly', we dont know due to serious contradictions along the way.

I wasnt suggesting any club membership. Just discussions of the circuits and getting this thing straight between people who are involved.When mud gets slung in your face, we tend to want to throw some back. It doesnt have to be that way. If you were to respectfully begin discussion, I trust you would get respect back. It goes both ways.
But look at what Rose says, and do you see all the mud in both directions?

Wanna know whats funny G. I bet the house, if you asked Rose what she has always thought of me since we met, I bet that house she would consistent with her recent views of me rather than what you can read before she grew horns for me. ;
How do I believe this so whole heartedly? Because since the horns, I saw consistent denials of things she said even an hour before let alone the rest of it. Talk about being blind but now I see. Oh the colors. ;]

You will too. Its inevitable. Look around.  Where are the team? Would they not be on that new site of hers? I know that she claims that they would never join here, but why not there???  There is no team. Bah, maybe someone to hook that contraption up and make the scope adjustments, and 'test the batteries for state of charge. Oh, she doesnt do state of charge tests of the batteries, nor does the team, err maybe team member.
I have 3 electric bikes. 2 are 36v one is 3 sla 12v in series, the other is 30 D cell 1.2v nimh in series, and a 48v, 4 12v sla in series. There is a thing called battery balancing when they are put in series. Those 30 D cells, if one is out of balance, there will be different power levels available to the system depending on that balance. Charging them all in parallel at 1.2v will not balance them. Each cell has different tolerances. Does Rose charge them with a 60v charger? or what ever voltage she uses, or all 1 at a time at 12v? Or just charge 1 battery after a fire and leave the rest as they were and add the newly charged battery to the string? Been a green driver for over 5 years. Not one gallon of gas did I buy for that period of time. I have 2 pontiac fieros, on is the v6 with 80hp shot of nitrous(been getting a serious makeover) and the other is an electric conversion in progress.

I know a bit about this stuff. And I can tell you that without tediously testing the state of charge of those huge batteries that Rose used, she cannot claim that there was no charge taken from the batteries nor charge given to them. She is definitely not reading the scope properly and did you see the pic of her circuit that Poynt pointed out that shows where the ground probes of the scope are? Her pic, wrong connections.
Its all here on these pages.

She supposedly was going to do these tests earlier this year or something. Says there is testing going on now. Meanwhile supposedly sent the rig to a lab and they said it was draining the batteries, yet she still lays claims to the batteries getting charged from the circuit, then its that there is more output than input, then its back to the batteries never losing any charge. Next week it will be something else. If that was my rig and I sent it to a lab and they didnt get the readings I got, I would be on the phone, skype, or go there myself and straighten that situation out. You can bet the house on it.  But it was just accepted sent back. And what, no in/out OU report from them? Cmon G.

This isnt a joke G. Im dead serious. 



Thats all.

Good luck with your efforts and no ill will. ;]

Mags

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4948 on: October 24, 2012, 07:51:08 PM »
Hey G

No problem. Just giving a heads up.  I wont bother you again after these few things..

It wasnt the tools used. It was the circuit rose used, 'supposedly', we dont know due to serious contradictions along the way.

..................................................


Thats all.

Good luck with your efforts and no ill will. ;]

Mags


Hi M,


I appreciate your input.  If you notice, I'm not following any of the protocols she outlines.  I'm simply generating a battery discharge curves for a series of batteries totaling 24VDC using 2 precision power resistors ... 100Ohms and 200Ohms.  I generate a curve (plot) of the calibrations. Then I'm tuning and running my circuit on the batteries and recording the differential temperature between a TC bonded to the RL interior wall and an ambient TC positioned nearby ... all in a relatively draft-free environment.  The RL is tilted so that there is a damped flow of ambient air up through the center of RL ... damped with a very loose cotton ball.  This guarantees not too much turbulent flow and prevents laminar flow. There is an equilibrium temperature attained and represents the power from the circuit. I plot the battery stack discharge like with the resistors.  I immediately follow with an RL differential temperature calibration using a Precision DC Power Supply and match the differential temperature attained during the circuit test.  Though indirect, this second RL calibration states what the circuit power actually was ... with good accuracy ... much better than 20% (TK).  The goal is to target and hit either the 100Ohm calibration curve or the 200Ohm calibration curve and then compare the relative power represented by each the respective curves.  This is all I'm doing.  I'm NOT taking anyone's word for anything.  The guys here are determined to make the world turn away from the possibilities of this technology by way of this thread.  Anyone reading this thread and buying into it, should just remain happy paying for the yachts, expensive cars, lavish homes an what all else owned by the oil and other power executives.  I'm trying to do my part to help mankind.  What's this thread doing to that end?

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4949 on: October 25, 2012, 01:04:01 AM »
Hey G ;] This is M here. lol

I had not been following over there. Well if you have something different than what was suppose to be Roses circuit, then I can say nothing of your circuit yet.

Sounds like you have a handle on it in many technical aspects.  Can you post the circuit here? Id like to see what you have going.

Im all about OU. My record here shows it.

When I first met Rose here, I had a circuit that I called The Believe circuit. Well what I believed was a miscalculation of multiple caps switching from parallel to series. Poynt got involved and pointed out my mistake, and he was right. When he pointed it out that morning, I thought, couldnt be? and I posted that I will have an answer by noon. Ended up he was right. I had done lots of resistor network calculations, Thevenin theorem, but this charged caps parallel then series calculations for what I thought was correct kept sticking me in that side like a pitch fork. Wont make those mistakes again. ;]  Its not a common circuit dealing with caps this way other than voltage multipliers that charge in parallel 'and' discharge in series without switching, just configuration and diodes.

Any way, keep on keepin on. Im still working on that cap project, now with corrected thinking with results Im not sure what to make of them.

A quick prelude. Battery, switch, diode, inductor and cap all in series with the switch open.

Close the switch and hold, and the cap has more voltage than the battery due to the flywheel effect of the inductor and is stuck in the cap due to the diode.

Now, if we time or gauge how long we hold the switch on to the point where the cap is at the same voltage as the batt, (here we have 1 more diode in the circuit that isnt active till the switch is released), then the inductor continues to freewheel its current to the cap as the field is collapsing.

So we charged the cap to the voltage level of the battery with the switch on then off, and the charge in the inductor continues to add to the cap till its above the battery voltage. 

Now, if we cut off the battery when the cap reaches battery voltage, we have claimed a 'certain' amount of energy from the battery to the cap, being that a cap at a certain voltage is calculable to the same amount of energy every time. Then the inductor continues to charge the cap beyond the battery voltage till full collapse.

I am further into it now. But I dont post a lot of things that I dont think are worthy of an audience till things get interesting even if its not OU.  ;]

Alright, I gota eat before I pass out.

Mags

 

OneLink