Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Stefan, I write this because I see that you're on line.

If you simply allow this work to be discussed in association with this thread and it's racially demeaning title and all the utterances that it contains with specific reference to our work and to my good name - then you are allowing this to progress in a context that is most certainly diminishing and negating by association - all the hard work that we have applied to this technology.

Regards again
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I agree and I thank you both for your work. But can we PLEASE agree on the designations? In the NON-oscillation mode it makes a big difference whether one mosfet or four are carrying the larger DC current, and I still contend that it is this mode that makes the high heat in Ainslie's trials.

Then you CONTINUE TO CONTEND THIS in spite of EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  That is hardly scientific.  It is certainly NOT logical.  And it does NOTHING to advance an understanding of this technology.  So.  WHAT ARE THE BASES OF YOUR CONTENTION?

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

PROVE IT.

It is impossible for a mosfet that is functioning properly to receive a +10 or +12 volt positive gate drive and NOT turn on and pass current. Stefan knows this and so does everybody else who has ever used a mosfet. Except maybe Ashtweth and Aaron.

You blew a mosfet in that trial and SINCE THEN you have NEVER used a long duty cycle with a 72 volt battery pack and a long ON time for Q1. And I know why and so do your collaborators, even if you don't.

I MOST CERTAINLY WILL PROVE IT.  BUT NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT OUR TESTS.  IT WOULD DIMINISH OUR WORK BY ASSOCIATION

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Dear Stefan,
Frankly I also dislike censorship.  And there is no way that this can be applied without insulting the intelligence of the readers of this thread.  Here's what I propose as a solution.

(snip bloviation)

Here's what I propose: NOBODY should be able to make any claims that they cannot substantiate by DATA, CHECKABLE REFERENCES and CORRECT MATHEMATICS. And if ANY claim is shown to be incorrect by proper math, references to outside common knowledge or repeatable experiment, that claim must be PUBLICLY RETRACTED and corrected.

In ADDITION, NOBODY is allowed to redefine terms but must use common scientific terminology in the way it is defined and commonly used in the collegelevel texts that most of us have studied and applied for YEARS.

FINALLY, when somebody is shown to be lying over and over about things like video postings, schematic diagrams, "boiling water" and so on.... that person's posts should always appear highlighted in BRILLIANT YELLOW as a warning to others who might want to "replicate" her claims.

[Groundloop]

TK,

GL's diagram is essentially the same as mine (attached). He is still calling Q1 "Q2" and vice versa according to Rosemary's First paper diagram though. I've not shown Q1's diode because it has no effect to the measurements in my simulation.

The conclusion from GL's test is this (GL, check your Main Input power calc. it has a typo):

The FG contributes power to the circuit (with or without the other MOSFET installed), which is half as much power as the battery supply (in this case), while the circuit is in the "negative bias" oscillation mode of operation.

.99

No. You must also simulate the body diode of the mosfet that is switched off. There is also a current path
for the bias through that diode. This current path is small, but it is there. I have measured this.

GL.