Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

idiot... i never misrepresented a material fact. demonstrate where i did this you liar. nor have i damaged you. nor have i deprived you of property or any interest, estate, or right...  idiot, troll.

1. You said you would send me a mosfet, and now you have admitted that you never intended to do so. That is a misrepresentation of a material fact.
2. You caused me intense pain and emotional suffering. I still can't sit down comfortably from the royal PAIN IN THE ASS that you are.
3. My privacy is a very valuable interest and you evidently have deprived me of it, or intend to.
4. And right now... you are attempting to damage me and my reputation, aren't you.

So in fact YOU are the liar, you liar you. Go back under your bridge, because you are falling on your face out here in the light, ignorant troll.

[WilbyInebriated]

1. You said you would send me a mosfet, and now you have admitted that you never intended to do so. That is a misrepresentation of a material fact.
2. You caused me intense pain and emotional suffering. I still can't sit down comfortably from the royal PAIN IN THE ASS that you are.
3. My privacy is a very valuable interest and you evidently have deprived me of it, or intend to.
4. And right now... you are attempting to damage me and my reputation, aren't you.

So in fact YOU are the liar, you liar you. Go back under your bridge, because you are falling on your face out here in the light, ignorant troll.

1 no, it is not. check with your counsel. you are purposefully omitting the qualification stated in your 'legal' quote. "intending for someone to rely on the misrepresentation and under circumstances in which such person does rely on it to his or her damage" you were not damaged, troll.

2 whaa effing whaa. you caused yourself intense pain and emotional suffering. had you chosen your words with a little more care and had you not been such an anti-social insane bitch jane, you wouldn't have ever heard from me.

3 you deprived yourself of privacy... idiot.

4 no, i am calling out your logical fallacies... like i always do. and like i always will.



so sue me for 'defrauding' you... you insane bitch. see how that works out for you... please record your conversation with counsel and post so all can have a good laugh at your counsel laughing at you.

still waiting on your retraction of your asinine conjecture...
still waiting on you to fill in the blanks of the ad hominem formula...
still waiting on that mea culpa about the mosfet performance...

[fuzzytomcat]

WilbyInebriated is Steve Windisch ....    I wonder ....   

[TinselKoala]

This thread (circuit) is so aptly named...
It is STILL funny after sooo many pages...
I have a few questions TK: Is the optocoupler thing is a light triggered switch?

Yes, it is a chip that contains an LED on one side and a phototransistor on the other, all sealed up, so from the outside it's just a relay, but the fact that it uses light means there is no electrical connection at all between the input and output side, just the light.

Are you after higher frequencies by using triggered leds and optocouplers instead of the FG (read AC voltage) signal?

No, the idea behind the optocouplers was to isolate the electrical circuits of the FG from the main circuit under test. It works fine for that, but because the oscillations require that negative current source, the optocouplers kill the oscillations.

Do you want to have the oscillations light the leds (to trigger the optocouplers?) I guess is what I'm asking?
I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to design, I just don't have the background so please put some more dots in there so I can connect them?
 
Lots of fun stuff in this thread lately BTW!

Oy,
PC

No, the optocouplers were never intended to be "lit up" by the oscillations. The ones I tried, H11 D1, I think, probably don't have the bandwidth response to go to 1.5 - 2 MHz anyway.

I'm not really trying to design anything more than what I've already done. The whole issue involving the FG was about determining if it passes significant current to the circuit and the load. The difficulty lies in the two modes of operation of the circuit. When a positive pulse is provided, the FG functions "normally" and isn't providing any power or current path, just a voltage to the gate of Q1. But when the pulse goes "negative" then the FG must provide a current path and a boosted voltage (negative) for the oscillations to happen. So the mode of operation of the circuit becomes important to deciding the FG's role.

I believe that the oscillations themselves contribute very little to load heating and battery depletion. All of the "high heat" trials that come with plausible descriptions and interpretable scope shots show substantial current flow during the "ON" or gate HI portions of the period, and there are no oscillations at these times. So, I believe that in order to make the "preferred" mode, that is high heat AND oscillations during some of the signal, a bipolar gate drive pulse must be used. This means that a simple 555 circuit can't do it, because it can't provide the "more negative than negative" bias current that is needed for oscs.

So I "designed" an inverter-timer circuit that would allow operation from the main battery and still make a more negative pole so that the oscillations could occur nevertheless. But now we are told that the positive gate pulse isn't needed. I doubt this, I think it is more misdirection from Ainslie to try to prevent Tar Baby from getting substantial heat in the load, while they refuse actually to test the proposition that THEY can get heat in the load without a positive gate pulse. A major RED HERRING in other words, one of many.

And I still think she wrote that lawyer letter herself. Perhaps she submitted text for lawyers to send along.... perhaps she actually sent it herself. I have never seen another instance of that usage of "refer" outside of Ainslie's own writings, though, and I have found at least 5 such examples within her writings.  My conclusion that she wrote the letter is an example of inductive reasoning, something that I deduce is foreign to certain drunken trolls. Nobody maintains that inductive reasoning is infallible, but the troll in his shallow superficial knowledge of the words and usages of formal logic, pretends and acts as if I think it is and persists in nattering on about his own interpretation of what he would like me to say and mean.

I am perfectly happy at any time to be PROVEN WRONG about any of my contentions and the conclusions I might hold based on inductive reasoning. Show me some examples of that usage of "refer"... without the "to" and with the object-subject relationship inverted.... from other writings than Ainslie's and I'll believe less strongly... maybe... that she wrote it. Show me the letterhead of the legal firm over the text.... and maybe I'll call them up and ask them if they wrote it. But you show me an email claiming to be from a law firm but with a typical idiosyncratic Ainslie phrase in it..... well.....  It must be strange to be Wilby, wondering if the sun will actually come up tomorrow or not, since the fact that it always has before isn't evidence that it will in the future.

The fact that the Q1 mosfet is not functioning properly in some of those scopeshots is a deduction and is not fallible, though. IF a positive gate pulse is delivered to a functioning mosfet in circuit, that mosfet will turn on and pass current. The mosfet was sent a positive gate signal. The mosfet did not turn on and pass current. Therefore the mosfet is either NOT getting the gate drive signal that is being delivered, OR it is not functioning or properly in circuit, or both. A failed mosfet, a miswired mosfet, a voltage regulator installed instead of a mosfet.... there are many explanations that may be INDUCED from the data, but what can certainly and positively be DEDUCED is that the mosfet isn't functioning properly. And that is a lot more germane to the present discussion than the exact meaning of "exact" when used to describe my temporary substitution of equivalent parts in a different circuit more than three years ago. In other words, a troll is a troll is a troll, QED.

[TinselKoala]

The troll in his superficiality would like to use my illustration of the post hoc non propter hoc fallacious reasoning to call into question my own reasoning in the case of Ainslie's Lawyer Letter.

The letter refers. 

(Did that make sense? Where have you seen that phraseology before, when it is the letter being referred TO, not doing the referring?)

If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is a logical fallacy.

If it is raining, the streets will be wet. Nobody in these parts has ever seen a wet street except when it is raining. There is no garden hose, no little kid, no fire hydrant, no other source of water around. Every time it has rained in the past, the streets got wet, and every time in the past when the streets have been observed to be wet, it has been or is raining. And, further, it rains every day and the streets are observed to be wet from that rain every day.
Now... I observe that the streets are wet. Can I reliably conclude then that it is raining? No, this is an invalid DEDUCTION because of the logical fallacy. This does not mean that it is necessarily wrong, though.
Would I be very surprised to learn that, this time, the streets were wet from some other unknown and extremely rare cause? Of course, because considering the entire set of circumstances and history, it is overwhelmingly probable that these particular wet streets are made wet by ordinary rain. It is a valid induction to presume, until it is PROVEN OTHERWISE, that the streets are wet because of the rain.

This is the correct mapping of my Lawyer Letter conclusion to my earlier illustration of logical fallacy, not as superficially and falsely as the troll would have it.

And the reason I brought the discussion up in the first place has nothing to do with Ainslie's letter or who wrote it, but has everything to do with the thread topic of testing the Tar Baby and evaluating the data therefrom.

Ainslie sees a negative mean power product and concludes from it that her circuit is overunity, COP > INFINITY. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that the negative mean power product can be obtained easily in circuit configurations and circumstances that are nowhere near COP>INFINITY, and that a circuit with COP>Infinity would behave differently than hers does. And the cause of the effect of negative mean power has been explained theoretically and demonstrated experimentally in simulation and hardware. It is not logical for her to conclude from her data that her circuit is unusual at all, much less OU by the claimed amount, and this is shown by the very form of the argument; the particulars are irrelevant. She may provisionally choose to interpret her data as supporting her claim, but when they are shown not to do so by further experimentation, the claims must be dropped since there is no logical foundation that requires them to be true, and in fact they are contradictory.

I am free to believe that it is raining when I observe wet streets as long as I realise that this is not the only possible explanation .... but if somebody shows me the fire crew outside spraying their hoses in the bright sunshine, perhaps I should revise my belief based on the new facts I now have.

I am free to believe, based on what I know at this point, that Ainslie wrote the letter herself, because there is no logical contradiction involved in that belief and because there is suggestive evidence that supports the belief. I will also abandon that belief when... or rather IF.... I am presented with evidence that shows that my induction is impossible, not compatible with the facts.

Ainslie WAS perhaps at one time able logically to believe that her circuit may be doing something unusual, based on the information she had then and legitimate inductive reasoning therefrom. However, further experimentation could always reveal new information that makes that original conclusion, arrived at inductively,  contradictory. And that is precisely what has happened. All of this should illustrate why it is important to try to _rule out_ alternative explanations for unusual or unexpected results, so that we don't succumb to the temptation of holding to a false conclusion in the face of contradictory data.

Therefore, Wilby is a professional troll and contributes nothing useful, only distraction and shallow, meaningless criticisms.