Testing the TK Tar Baby

[fuzzytomcat]

Now that's a really nice forum she has there.

Not too difficult to envision her sitting there on her own deserted island of shifting delusions
with no one to talk to but herself, waiting for someone ..anyone, to please post something ..anything.

Time for her to PM as many people as she can, to at least leave a comment.
.

LOOK .... at the web site stats !!

Talk about a "DRY" spell over there, when having 532 members and Rosemary with 300% more postings including time logged in than anyone else. I wonder why all the members aren't posting ..... maybe there just members to be able to view the attachment files posted, because you have to be a member of this IP and cookie tracking honey hole web site to see anything.

Just think .... Rosemary is proud of this personal web site of COP knowledge destruction .

FTC

[picowatt]

If applying +10 volts to the gate of Q1 in her recent test does not turn on Q1, what, exactly, does she have to do to make Q1 turn on for the "high heat" mode?

Surely if +10 volts were applied to the gate of Q1, the waveforms would look like FIG 5, wherein the CSR trace shows substatial current flow during the positive portion of the FG cycle.


So, if a functional Q1 is connected as per the schematic, and the FG output is +10V, the CSR trace should look like FIG 5 during the positive portion of the FG cycle and FIG 3 will not be able to be replicated (wherein +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 and no current flow is observed).

Or, if Q1 does not turn on with +10 volts applied to its gate, Q1 cannot be connected as per the schematic in which case the CSR trace will look like FIG 3, and FIG 5 will not be able to be replicated.

Again, a functional Q1 connected as per the schematic must turn on when the FG output is +5 volts or greater and current flow will be observed at the CSR trace as in FIG 5.

She can't have it both ways.  If Q1 is connected as per the schematic, the waveforms should look like FIG 5 when the FG output is +5 volts or greater with substantial current flow observed at the CSR.

If she has indeed applied +10 volts to the gate of a functional Q1, and observed no current flow, I would suggest she has the source and gate leads of Q1 reversed, placing Q1 in parallel with the four Q2 MOSFET's.  Of course, there will be no "high heat" mode with this connection, which would also not be as per the schematic.

   

[TinselKoala]

To be credible, the evidence for her claim MUST include the following:

1)A clear and conventionally drawn schematic NEWLY MADE of the circuit in use, not a clone or rehash of any of the existing diagrams;
2)Clear and large photographs of both sides of the circuit in use, with a time-date stamp that is verifiable, BEFORE the test run is accomplished, so that the schematic given can be verified as that actually in use;
3)Some confirmation testing that all mosfets used are fully functional before testing;
4)The data run itself, including time-temperature profiles of the load in use;
5)A known and verifiable signal of +10 to +12 volts at the RED function generator lead connected to the Q1 mosfet GATE / Q2 mosfet SOURCES as shown in the paper's schematic;
6)The relevant scope shots;
7)Some confirmation testing that the mosfets are STILL all fully functioning after testing;
8)Clear and large photographs of both sides of the circuit in use, with a time-date stamp that is verifiable, AFTER the test run is completed, so that the schematic given can be verified as that actually used.

The timestamps could be done by displaying, in the same frame, some unique information, like a computer screen showing a live time indication like this one:
www.time.gov
Although even that could be faked easily. A live video would be even better than still photos, but still possible to fake of course.

I submit that, considering the sum total of Ainslie's past history with data, scopeshots, schematics, wiring and testing, anything less than this full set of information will be unreliable and untrustworthy at best,  and complete mendacity otherwise.

I ask again. How are the mosfets to be tested for proper functioning before and after the experimental trials?

[TinselKoala]

.99.......
You really should  require HER to show HER work, which she never does.

Because as you well know, forgetting to divide by one can really screw up a calculation. I'd like to see just where forgetting to divide by one caused her to get the numbers she got... so I don't make the same stupid mistakes.



Maybe I should just divide everything by one, and see what happens.

Polly Parrot, the mathematician who thinks dividing by one will solve her problems. I swear you cannot even parody this woman, she is her own parody. I don't even believe SHE is that stupid; she must surely be joking.

Also you really should check her other thread, where it is very clear that she doesn't believe a thing you have been telling her.

Of course, someone who thinks that 1 Joule = 1 Watt and that "per" never indicates a division operation.... might also think that dividing by one is the same as taking the inverse of a number..... dividing 1 BY the number, not the other way around. And anyone with a day's experience in a math classroom would know that ANY NUMBER DIVIDED BY ONE yields that same number. Why... even a calculator can show that this is true. But maybe she should try all numbers just to make sure that when you divide any of them BY ONE, you get the same number you started with. Exactly.

But of course we are mind readers and we know what Ainslie means: it is the exact opposite of what she says, and if we misunderstand this, it is OUR fault, not hers.

She knows what the "2" in an expression like   
x²
means, I hope. It means "square" or the second power; in other words,  take x and multiply it by itself.

I wonder what she makes of an expression like

x^-1

?   

[TinselKoala]

This is SIXTH GRADE math, the kind an eleven year old child can do in a few minutes, with a paper and pencil.

I ask again: how are the mosfets to be tested to show that they are functional before and after the scopeshots we are worried about are reproduced by Ainslie?

Do I expect to get an answer? Of course not, I am just emphasising that there won't be an answer, nor will there be any honest testing or reporting from Ainslie and her "team" of incompetents.