Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

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

They are all over this thread, shown in your own scopeshots if you would only learn to read them.

[poynt99]

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.

TK,

Until Rosemary advises us otherwise, the diagram and MOSFET designations are as per her first paper, as per my diagram.

@GL, it would be helpful to the discussion here if you adopt the same designations so we can all be on the same page...thanks. It does make a difference when considering the big picture.

[Groundloop]

Hang on a second here GL, something is wrong; check your numbers again for the Main Input calculation. 

24V x 0.17A = 4.08W, not 4.98W. I think you mistakenly hit the "9" key instead of the "0" key when you were typing.

So, it holds. 1/3 of the total power is contributed by the FG (in this case with 12V and 24V supplies).

yes, it was a typo.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

YOU ALLEGE that I have been lying.  I INTEND GETTING THAT ESTABLISHED IN A COURT OF LAW.  NOT IN SOME KANGAROO COURT OF A FORUM ADJUDICATED BY A BIASED MEMBER WITH A DECLARED AGENDA TO DISPROVE OUR CLAIM ON ANY BASES AT ALL.

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.

AND YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO QUESTION MY COMPETENCE WHEN YOUR OWN IS CLEARLY WANTING.  YOU ARE STILL PRESUMING TO CALCULATE POWER WITH QUIXOTIC UNACCEPTABLE AND NON STANDARD PROTOCOLS

Rose Pose

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Until Rosemary advises us otherwise, the diagram and MOSFET designations are as per her first paper, as per my diagram.

@GL, it would be helpful to the discussion here if you adopt the same designations so we can all be on the same page...thanks. It does make a difference when considering the big picture.

And as per my diagram as well, right?
Including the CVR position and the FG cliplead colors as connected in the video.

The only difference is that the video shows the BLACK FG connector at the common ground point instead of the paper's and our diagrams showing it on the transistor side of the CVR.
Right?