Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

@mrS2K...
you said,
" I can't imagine it's possible for you to object to the author as the canonical source to resolve any ambiguity on how his own post should be interpreted and applied."

Heh... you probably weren't around when she was telling PowerCat what HIS posts really meant. There was a page of argument where HE was telling her what he meant, directly, and SHE was telling him no, that wasn't what he meant at all.....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316104/#msg316104 in and around there.

Believe me, she is not above arguing with a physics professor about what he just said and is still written on the blackboard, much less with a wikipedia author or an ''anonymous" forum poster.
       

[TinselKoala]

Now, I really think we should get back to the topic of the thread, which Polly Parrot is trying to derail, which is Testing the TK Tar Baby.

Ainslie made this claim, in a response to PW, I believe:

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 responded thusly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc


Compare, contrast, conclude.

[TinselKoala]

Of course... since we are now discussing the high heat mode that sometimes makes those strange scopeshots with no current flow even though there is a +12 volt signal to the gate of Q1....

or is there really?

The two papers, which ostensibly describe the same apparatus and the same set of experiments, give 2 significantly different schematics as the one used for the experiments. In the first one, a positive signal from the FG's positive probe winds up at the gate of the single Q1 mosfet on a light heatsink. But in the second diagram, a positive voltage signal from the FG's positive probe winds up at the gates of the 4 parallel Q2 mosfets on heavy heatsinks.
This won't affect the oscillations much, but it WILL make a significant difference in the durability of the circuit and its ability to handle high currents.
With the Q1 mosfet on the RIGHT, as in Paper 1 and as Tar Baby is currently configured, the single Q1 will have to carry all the current when the FG's signal to its gate is HI (12 volts, as shown in many of Ainslie's scope shots.) And with a 72 volt battery pack and a 12 volt gate drive signal, the mosfet will be passing close to its absolute maximum current, and it is on an inadequate heat sink. Therefore it is likely to fail, and indeed the "anomalous" scopeshots that we have worried about are easily explained by a blown or missing or miswired mosfet. Other explanations are lacking.
However, if the Q1 mosfet is on the LEFT, as shown in the Paper 2 schematic, the positive 12 volt FG signal is now delivered to the gates of the Q2 "gang of four" which of course can easily handle the current since they share it and are on those heavy heatsinks. And there is enough wire for the Q1 to oscillate normally during the LO (offset below zero) level of the gate drive pulse from the FG.

Tar Baby can be placed in either of these configurations, as well as others, simply by rearranging its mosfets in their sockets. But are we even clear about which schematic to use for any "replication" attempt? I know that I have my own doubts..... and as far as I can tell Ainslie has never come right out and said, "The schematic in Paper 1 is correct and all other schematics are being removed as errors" or anything remotely like that. Instead, when asked, she says something closer to "I've already answered you and this is growing tedious bubba so go away and I'm going to stop up my ears because you are bullying me and I'm going to sue you and your co-conspirators as soon as I find out your IP address."

Anyhow, I've got all of them and Tar Baby can be set up in moments to use any of them, but still... just for the sake of Science... it would be nice to know, once (or twice even ) for all. I mean, I have no problem with them using both versions in the two different modes, just TELL US if that's what they did. Using the different schematics, OK, weird but OK. NOT telling us about it, if that's what they did, is a cardinal sin.

The two different schematics:

[ReFried]

Dearest Rosemary,

I've been reading this TarBaby thread for what is now over 125 highly fascinating pages. Your travails with expert and highly credible correspondents has been, quite frankly, incredible.

I have never before seen on the internet such a prolonged yet decisive battle between uniquely equipped  combatants. There has also been a great deal of high level discussion on precise scientific and technical points, yet I digress from my primary message .

All can see that TarBaby exists simply as a type of tribute to your unique claims and persistence. A tribute indeed and what follows in its wake is an indelible record and testimony of your contribution to a completely new form of science ...

At every turn you have evaded direct and valid questions related to your technology. Skillful maneuvering in the field.

You have successfully avoided any practical testing of your device as required for discussion. Brilliant tactical delay.

When your technical knowledge and credibility has been called into question on focus of pristine point you have misdirected and asserted an opposing viewpoint,  without basis. Simply remarkable.

These are your primary virtues. Not to be overlooked, when faced with an overwhelming opponent to your views you have insulted and libeled in text book fashion. The nuclear option.  This approach usually silences the weak willed who have no true right to proffer a valid argument or dissenting opinion.

You have in fact blazed a trail here in opposition to the accepted values of the Open Source community. Yours is a new and innovative protocol ...

As other prizes and accolades are now out of reach, we have decided that an important step be taken. On behalf of the Committee, myself and the extended TarBaby family we would like to present you with:

The La Mancha Prize

Credo and Quotation -

"And so, to sum it all up, I perceive everything I say as absolutely true, and deficient in nothing whatever, and paint it all in my mind exactly as I want it to be." Miguel de Cervantes - The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (Volume 1, Chapter 25, pg. 157)

Congratulations on your accomplishments which will never be forgotten.

In the service of science, ever sincerely,

ReFried

[The Boss]

  As another loyal supporter and follower of Rosemary Ainslie's commitment to her cause, I wish to commend Stefan for being a champion, and allowing her to continue to consistantly provide hard evidence, and a daily reminder, of the need for mental health awareness.