Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie ranted, telling the story of the famous "collaboration":

I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology.  They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance.  They are WELL PAID.  And they are VERY EFFECTIVE.  The also have liberal access to laboratories.  And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there.  I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name.  They are DANGEROUS.  And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses.  I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case.  We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense.  The man's a genius.  And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.

See.. she is NOT paranoid.
She is psychotic.

I am able to insert a wire that is simply not there. I am DANGEROUS. And the worst calumny of all.... I am WELL PAID.

Well, I'm amused, certainly.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/12/216-background-resulting-in-that-prior.html

[MileHigh]

It's time to move on.  Rosemary, whether you understand it or not or believe it or not, nobody is disagreeing with the fundamental point that you are trying to get across about average power measurements.  So it's time for you to drop the whole subject.

Therefore I absolutely DO NOT undestand this question of yours...

We all know that.  And if you only knew the sinking feeling we all feel in our hearts when you make that statement.

At times, you seem to indicate that you understand how a MOSFET works.  So I am assuming that you are unable to "parse" TK's statement, "How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown?"

You still can't speak the language.  There is a necessity to hold your hand and explain everything in explicit detail and for all I know it could take three posting or 53 postings for you to understand what TK said.  It's very depressing and discouraging.

That's why, when in doubt, or when in serious doubt, go for Plan B, the dim bulb testing.

Go to the bulb.....   Go to the bulb.....  The bulb will set you free....

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

We have already EXHAUSTED this argument.  LONG BACK.  Q2 does NOT APPLY 12 VOLTS DC to Q1 during that 'extended' oscillation test in our paper.  That voltage reading depends on required 'qualification' in terms of the chosen coupling and in terms of the applied offset of the function generator.  IT IS A STANDARD function - and from the evidence it seems that you yourself have replicated this.  Why then do you ask?

Q2 applies whaaat? Who said anything about Q2? THE SCOPE TRACE SHOWS A POSITIVE 12 VOLT SIGNAL and unless you have changed the schematic again THAT IS APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q1 BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR and nobody BUT YOU said anything about Q2. You are hallucinating words again.

Therefore I absolutely DO NOT undestand this question of yours...Are you now saying that you have NOT managed to replicate this?  I distinctly recall you showing us an identical waveform.  Was I hallucinating? Again?

Of course you don't understand the question, because it's NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED, it is your hallucination.

Or did you simply show a small section of an oscillation precisely because you COULD not replicate this condition?  LOL.  Let us know.  One way or the other.  It will be interesting.

Post a link to my waveforms and I will be happy to explain EVERY FEATURE, in stark contrast to YOU, who cannot even explain ANY feature of your traces.

Especially in the light of your CLAIM to have REPLICATED EACH AND EVERY claim that is included in our papers.

YOU LIE AGAIN, you lying bloviator. I have claimed ONE THING ONLY, and that is that TAR BABY and NERD perform just the same in all significant respects, and I have DEMONSTRATED that Tar Baby does NOT do what you only CLAIM but never show: Tar Baby's batteries discharge while running. You have claimed otherwise for NERD but never NEVER have you even tested this  much less shown it. SO AGAIN and again you LIE about what I say and do. You should be made to wear a big red L on your forehead.

And more especially as it relates to some of those videos of yours.  We can demonstrate that condition of zero output from the supply with the application from 24 volts up to 72 volts tested.  At no stage does the MOSFET even get significantly  WARM.  And that's Q1 which has NO significant heat sink to speak of.

I will love to see that demonstrated with a working mosfet. It is impossible for a mosfet to carry significant current without getting warm. Rdss of the PG50 is 2 OHMS, and I know you know how to do I^2R. At least I hope you do, by now. Hint: the answer is in WATTS.

This phrase is SLANDEROUS and entirely unacceptable and not only needs to be retracted but also requires an apology.I was relying on you doing so.  Someone needs to bring your slander to his attention.  It is in breach of forum guidelines and it is entirely unacceptable - let alone unprofessional and even criminal.

Rosie Pose

Preserved for evidence. Ainslie lies and lies, and has the outright temerity to make accusations and threats while she's doing it.

[TinselKoala]

Maybe this visual aid will help those who can be helped, to understand why there is a question WHICH AINSLIE DOES NOT DEIGN TO ANSWER about this scopeshot from their "paper".

[fuzzytomcat]

That is indeed an odd one, as we have noted before.

There is the blue trace, indicating a positive 12 volts applied to the gate of mosfet Q1, for a duration of about SIXTEEN SECONDS during each "on" period.

Yet... there is absolutely NO current flow indicated on the CVR trace during that time.

Surely even a zipon-saturated IRFPG50 would be able to turn on, from a 12 volt solid gate signal, within sixteen seconds. I mean they are slow, but not _that_ slow.

What can possibly be the explanation for this scope shot? What is keeping the Q1 mosfet from turning on and passing current?

Could it be that something is disconnected somewhere, or a different circuit is being used? Or is there an even simpler explanation?

Polly Parrot refuses to tell us what her explanation is for this staggering "anomaly". However she has squawked a bit about how her "academics" have confirmed the data or some such rot. Therefore we are assured that the DATA is correct: somehow, a Q1 mosfet is being given a 12 volt gate signal and yet is not able to pass current.

This is not an error in the data. It is really REALLY happening: A mosfet is being given + 12 volts at its gate and is not passing current between drain and source. Her academics agree.

Why is this happening? Every n-channel mosfet I've ever seen behaves differently than this.

Every mosfet, that is.... that was actually working and wired correctly into its circuit.

EDIT TO ADD: Is there anyone, anywhere, that believes that the NERD load could be heated to nearly 200 degrees C, when running as shown in that scope shot? I certainly don't.

Go ahead, Polly: PROVE ME WRONG by showing
1) a delivery of +12 volts to the gate of Q1 and NOT turning it on, and 2) Heating a load substantially using scope traces like those shown in that shot above.

@ TK

Using the schematic Protoboard_schema_added(1).png with the Q1 / Q2-Q4 arrangement said to be used and the LeCroy DPO oscilloscope screen shots provided with probes connected to ....             

Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate  ( Functions Generator - Square Wave Pulse )
Channel 4 = Drain

I was able to sort through the published oscilloscope screen shots that were posted by Rosemary all over the place with the original LeCroy numbers possibly because of the date and time.


SCRN0253.jpg    50s    500K    2011/03/02    07:54:13    am 

SCRN0254.jpg    20s    500K    2011/03/02    08:09:57    am

SCRN0255.jpg    1us    10K      2011/03/02    08:12:37    am


If Channel 3 = Gate  ( Functions Generator - Square Wave Pulse ) is whats connected in the oscilloscope screen shot   SCRN0255.jpg  ( 1us 2011/03/02  08:12:37 am )  you and the others are correct that something is wrong .... 

Now there is three (3) LeCroy oscilloscope screen shots taken in one place all taken in around eighteen minutes .... imagine that 

FTC