Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

PW:

Monte Carlo methods, you sly fox.  For some reason I always think of James Bond.

All:

In reading through the last 48 hours worth of technical and psychological drama, I think I can distill it down to this:

1.  Rosemary is still wrong about the function generator current and exposes herself yet again as being belligerent and grossly technically incompetent.
2.  Rosemary is still wrong about the positive polarity at the Q2 array gate input and exposes herself as being belligerent and grossly technically incompetent.
3.  Rosemary's claims about having engineers supporting her for the above two points can't be true by definition so she is either seriously deluded about her alleged support system, or the people in her support system are not engineers and they are incompetent,  or she is lying.

The bottom line is that we all know that there is a net DC current and net power flowing out of the batteries and into the load.  This has been measured and simulated a few different ways.  Therefore by definition the batteries will discharge.

Rosemary:

You dug yourself deeper into a hole over the past two days.  Just do the dim bulb testing, that's all that you need to do.  Regardless of what you believe, you are up against what we know from TK's tests and from our education and our experience.  What we know is that the beauty and harmony of Nature dictates that energy gets transformed from one form into another in perfect harmony and balance.  We are alive because of the energy pouring down on the planet from the sun.  The whole ball of wax is essentially solar powered.  And you are certainly not breaking that beauty and harmony and symmetry with a battery, a switch, and a resistor.

Just do the dim bulb testing and see for yourself.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys,

Have woken up to another 'slew of misdirections' from TK and some more of that HOT TAR at my back and in my face. 

Even in that blog post, before morphing, she misrepresents the data. Observe:

Well, I do look closely, and this is what I see: A voltage across the "shunt" during the "ON" time... the positive FG pulse --- that looks like about 80 mV positive to me. The zero baseline is offset by 20 mV above the center graticle line and the middle of the fuzz on the CVR trace during the ON period is about 100 mV above the graticle marker, so that looks like about 80 mV or so to me. With a 0.25 Ohm CVR this gives I = V/R == 0.08/0.25 == about 320 milliAmps .... hardly "fractionally above zero" and in fact enough to provide significant load heating indeed. 320 milliAmps at 62 "something" volts is nearly 20 Watts that is going somewhere. Anybody want to guess where?

The scopeshot from the blogpost:

Please take a good long look at our TK  'DOING THE MATH'.  He has absolutely NO CLUE how to do power measurements.  He never has.  And what better evidence does one need. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

p.s.  NOTA BENE - picowatt - MileHigh - FTC - PhiChaser - NONE OF THEM - even turned a hair.  Clearly they're either as useless at power measurements as our Leon - or they are somewhat catastrophically uncritical of the amount of TAR that he applies.  One can't help by 'wonder why'?  That 5 against 1 thing.  LOL 

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Please take a good long look at our TK  'DOING THE MATH'.  He has absolutely NO CLUE how to do power measurements.  He never has.  And what better evidence does one need.

Your comment about TK's measurements are not going to fly.  You can't just quote him and not address what he is saying, that's ridiculous.

So, do you have something specific to say about TK's comments?  If yes, state them and let's see what you have to say.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear MileHigh

Rosemary:

Your comment about TK's measurements are not going to fly.  You can't just quote him and not address what he is saying, that's ridiculous.

So, do you have something specific to say about TK's comments?  If yes, state them and let's see what you have to say.

MileHigh

I prefer to be  'ridiculous' than state the ridiculously OBVIOUS.  So. NO.  I WILL NOT INDULGE YOU WITH SPECIFICS.  It should be up there with the 'bleeding obvious' to quote an inimitable Basil Fawlty.

Rosie Pose

and by the way (btw) WHY DO YOU EVEN ASK?  Are you skills as heavily compromised as TK's?  Golly.  Who would have thought.  And all 5 of you posing as EXPERTS.  It certainly puts your general combined competence at something considerably less than my own.  Yet it is MY competence in power measurements that you seem to find QUESTIONABLE.  I suggest you ALL question your own and that you ALL go and LEARN - as picowatt puts it.

Again,
Rosie Pose

added some EMPHASIS.  LOL

[TinselKoala]

Unbelievable. She's confronted with her errors over and over and over, and she can't even say what's wrong with my work. Yet she has to post SOMETHING, because her ego is disintegrating before her very eyes.

She has descended to the "stomp her foot and hold her breath till she turns purple" stage of rhetoric.

NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, has she refuted me with facts, checkable references, or calculations of her own. NOT ONCE. Because she cannot.

Ainslie, you have zero credibility, but you do provide considerable amusement.  Keep it up, I really am going to enjoy seeing how far down your throat you can stck your own foot.

Ainslie said,

What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'. 

And TK replied,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc