Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

Look at your own schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR.  The FG can do nothing to change that, the gate of Q2 will always be at or very near to ground potential (the voltage indicated at the CSR). 

No.  Not at all.  Again.  Q2 source and gate are both positive and the source leg of Q2 floats.  It is specifically NOT connected ANYWHERE AT ALL to the source rail of the battery supply or to its negative rail as Poynty prefers to term it.  The voltage indicated at the current sensing resistor (CSR) is not the cause but the effect of the current flowing through the MOSFET.  That it's on the negative terminal of the battery does not mean that it is thereby and correspondingly NEGATIVE.  The CSR is indicating the voltage that is applied and the polarity of that voltage - which is a reasonable gauge of the current flowing through it.  And that's ALL that it indicates. 

That CSR Ignoring the small voltages seen across the CSR, the gate can, for discussion of DC conditions, be considered as tied to ground. 

We could just as easily put the CSR directly on the positive rail of the battery and we shall DO SO in our tests to show you this.  It makes not one iota  of difference.  The CSR is NOT tied to ground.  It simply and adequately indicates - as mentioned the polarity and level of voltage in order for us to determine the rate and direction of current flow. 

It is the source leg of Q2 that sees the FG output voltage, not the Q2 gate.  Q2 is turned on by having a negative voltage applied to its source by the FG.  The voltage at the gate is effectively unchanged.

This is easily disproved - as mentioned.  And I assure you I will vary the circuit through just one test - to prove that the CSR can be at either the positive or negative terminals of that battery and it will make not 1 smallest of the smallest of an iota of difference.  Added to which I'll prove to you that the source leg of Q2 is FLOATING.

From your written statements and drawings I personally do not believe you comprehend this.

And I'm equally satisfied that you have still not registered that the source of Q2 is floating.  When you do see this you'll see that your argument is void.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You apparently seem to think that the FG is somehow changing the voltage at the gate.  It is not.  The gate of Q2 is ALWAYS at the voltage of the non-battery end of the CSR.

We can disprove this - in its entirety.  When the probe and its terminal are applied directly to the gates of Q1 and Q2 and the CSR is applied directly to the positive terminal of the battery - then - NOTWITHSTANDING we get an IDENTICAL oscillation - in size, shape, frequency and duration.  And again.  The source leg of Q2 is specifically and most assuredly entirely disconnected from the battery supply source rail.

As to the rest, and more of your "death by a thousand cuts" insults, digs and jabs...

No digs and jabs.  It is my competence that you are putting to question at a level that is insulting.  And this destruction is in EVERY SINGLE post on this thread.  Why is that necessary?  Unless there is some overriding need to IMPLY my utter incompetence.  It is both insulting and slanderous.

Golly, if you could comprehend the DC conditions of your circuit, maybe you could understand how all that AC current flows.

Not even you can explain what is going on in that circuit.  Which is precisely why it needs to be put to the desk of experts. You have yet to acknowledge that the source leg of Q2 is NOT connected to that battery supply negative.

Believe what you want, but you further erode your credibility with each of your posts

So you keep saying.  In which case why are you and TK so anxious to get me banned or blocked from commenting.  I would have thought that this would play in very nicely with your mission.  Isn't that what you're hoping that everyone will believe?  That I know not whereof I speak?  And that you want me positioned that I cannot defend this slander?

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So you present papers on something which you know nothing about? Wild.

If you know nothing about it, why would you have any objection to the actual testing going on here, or call it 'spin?' Nonsensical to say the least.

Who says I object to any testing ever.  My objection is to inappropriate tests as they're claimed to apply to  our technology.  And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to address anomalies in papers.  Why would you think otherwise?

Rosie Pose

[happyfunball]

Who says I object to any testing ever.  My objection is to inappropriate tests as they're claimed to apply to  our technology.  And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to address anomalies in papers.  Why would you think otherwise?

Rosie Pose

What technology? You claim to know nothing about it. How do you know it's technology?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You just have to laugh. We've gone from the claim of COP > INFINITY all the way down to "I claim NOTHING".

By my calculations that is an infinite reduction in the magnitude of the overunity claim originally made by this claimant.

So... what is the big deal? If Ainslie no longer is claiming anything but a few measurements that anyone can reproduce with a handful of mosfets and an oscilloscope.... and is no longer claiming the various prizes..... where's the beef? Let her go away and hide under a rock, then.

What we can prove, unequivocally - is that there's MEASURED evidence of a COP INFINITY.  How this relates to the fact is still to be determined.  It is either a measurements error - in which case standard measurement protocols need revision.  Or it's a reflection of an exceptional efficiency in the transfer of energy - that has yet to be demonstrated.  If the measurement of INFINITE COP warrants a prize then we can prove it.  If it needs to be demonstrated that it can outperform a battery's rating - then that is still to be proved.

Obviously
Rosie Pose