Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

And, by the way.... the links to EVERY BIT of the "information" in question have indeed been provided, by me, by FTC, and by Ainslie herself. EVERYTHING that I have posted anywhere, I gathered from her OWN BLOG AND FORUM POSTS, and the location is usually given explicitly in the filename or within the image itself. Simply searching google for the "SCRN" filenames or a segment of quoted text will give the original sources if they aren't included in the file.

The names... EVERY ONE OF THEM, and a few more that I haven't yet posted.... are also in publicly released information from Ainslie herself, going back to 2007 and before .... and in forum and blog posts, some of which she has returned to, long after the original posting, and edited for meaning and content.

And, as we have recently shown in references to threads in this forum, she actively encourages people to contact those names.... until they actually try to DO SO.... at which point two things happen: she freaks out, and the people turn out to be uncontactable, unfindable, or never to have heard of her-- or unwilling to admit they have.

In short, she lies quite grandly when she accuses me or anyone else of "stealing" or revealing information. SHE POSTED IT ALL HERSELF.

[TinselKoala]

I wonder how Ainslie explains to her friends how TK rifled her computer, but somehow managed to leave it still operational......

All I can say at this point is that I'm so mad that it's a good thing for her that she's wrong.

Actually.... maybe she's not wrong.

Maybe "somebody" planted a sleeper program in her computer, that is just waiting for her to enter a bunch of spreadsheet data before it wipes the hard drive (after posting all her personal information to a web page of course). Master hackers can do that, you know, even to Apple computers that are on another continent. Access sufficient to "rifle files" and extract names and phone numbers is totally sufficient to leave behind hidden programs like keyloggers, password trappers, and delayed destruction instructions.

Maybe Ainslie needs to take her computers to an antivirus firm and have them examined for malware. You never can tell what that evil monster psycopath TinselKoala is going to do next, to suppress the greatest invention humanity has ever known.

You know, the one described in those two papers on Rossi's blog--- the ones that can't even agree between themselves about the circuit or the apparatus used, and that lie about things like batteries not discharging, 5.9 megaJoules in 96 minutes, mosfets "working" even though the scopeshots show they aren't....... that invention.

[TinselKoala]

Well. .99...... are we making progress yet? Or... still?



Take a look at this Ainslie-pile.
"the voltage across Q1"..... No, Ainslie. The voltage applied to the GATE of Q1.

But we are going to need ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION of the circuit you are using.... since you have just "published" a different one from what you have been claiming to use for the past six months.

The coupling had not been set to AC.
You pollyparrot idiot. You betray here ONCE AGAIN that you do not understand AC/DC coupling... and besides that IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in what we are here discussing. Your scopeshots show a DC voltage of +12 volts applied to a mosfet gate without the mosfet turning on. Do this again...... we are all waiting to see it. AC vs DC coupling does NOT affect this issue at all, you bloviating idiot ignoramus.

Voltage further compromised by the offset setting of the FG.
Nonsense again. Are you here claiming that the SCOPE is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH? The scope is reading what the FG is sending, you ignorant arrogant idiot.

And you NEVER ONCE explained it at all... because you don't understand it yourself, for one thing. You have NEVER explained this...all you have ever done is denied OUR questions and interpretations. Go ahead... give a link to your ACTUAL explanation... you cannot, because there isn't one.

And Stefan finally "indulged" because YOU THREATENED HIM AGAIN. You are indeed a vile mendacious liar, Ainslie, and the record proves it, over and over again.

And your utter obsession with your hallucinated "GER" whatever that means, and the SIZE OF MY PICKLE.... we all know you wake up at night, your only thought the size and shape and bumpiness of my huge PICKLE... but do you really need to mention your weird sexual fantasies in public?

And yes, the "publication" of two different schematics purporting to describe the same experiment, and trying to get some kind of prize or recognition for it, is indeed extreme misconduct and FRAUD, you bloviating liar Ainslie.

Yes, we all want you to repeat that test PROPERLY and CLEARLY. Will there be a referee? Will you do it properly?
I really want to see you explain the difference between the AC and DC settings on your Function Generator. And I'm wondering how you are going to prove that your mosfets are indeed intact... since you have no clue about how they are supposed to function.

Oh, yes, Ainslie. There are a lot of people waiting to see your tests. Just like last year.... when you LIED FOR A MONTH afterward about the circuit itself and what was actually measured and where.

[picowatt]

I would suggest that "someone" who has demonstrated over and over that she knows almost nothing about electronics and the use of test equipment, tread lighlty with regard to calling  those with a good deal of experience in electronics and familiar with the use of test equipment, "liars".

In the end, you will only discredit and embarass yourself further.

It seems you are now trying to make the case that the 'scope does not even show the voltage at the gate of Q1.  What, exactly, does the vertical scale on a 'scope represent?



For clarity I will restate again:

In FIG3 of the first paper, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approximately +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  All will surely agree that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on.  However, during the same portion of the FG cycle, no significant current is observed via the CSR trace as one would expect if Q1 were turned fully on.

As well, in FIG 6 and FIG 7, sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 on is also indicated, and again, no sigifcant current flow is observed at the CSR.

This can only mean that Q1 was either disconnected, not connected as per the schematic, or that Q1 was not functional, during the tests depicted by FIG3, FIG6, and FIG7.  There can be no other explanation, it must be one of the above three.


In FIG5, a test made the month prior, approximately +6 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1 and as one would expect, significant current flow is indicated.



The above statements are true.  If you do not believe them, you have had plenty of time to confirm this with an EE or similar, as I have suggested many times.

As you have recently been having discussions with .99, I suggest that you ask him to weigh in on the above. 

[MileHigh]

Rosie is going to steamroll over all detractors - scorched earth!  The new Stalin!

But who will ultimately end up being a burnt crisp?