Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Evolvingape

As you can see March 31, 2011 Rosemary reported that diagnostics on her device that was used to generate the scopeshots showed that 2 out of 5 MOSFET's had blown.

Not actually.  NOTHING blew at that demonstration - other than certain constraints to our Thermodynamic Laws.  And we have at least 30 people to validate this - quite apart from the evidence presented.

So definately 1 of the 4 MOSFET's in the Q2 - Q5 array had failed, and either a second in the Q2 - Q5 array or the Q1 MOSFET had also failed.

You wish. 

The scopeshot FIG 3 indicates a FAILED MOSFET according to people skilled in reading oscilloscopes.

Are you referring to picowatt?  As someone 'skilled' in reading oscilloscopes?  Unfortunately his skill is only something that he alleges.  While the evidence belies this.  For starters - he seems to think that setting the channel to AC coupling would somehow influence all the other channels on our scope.  He really needs to have a longer conversation with that EXPERT at LeCroy that he also alleges he spoke to.

The evidence points to a data set generated from failed components. This would probably be supported by the large number of additional scopeshots Rosemary has on file if they were made available to the open source community. Despite repeated requests for this raw data the request has never been acknowledged, let alone actioned.

My data is freely available to any one in the whole wide world.  It is all of it transferable from my flash drive.  Send me your flash drive - I'll send you our data. No way can I make the information available otherwise.  There's just WAY too much of it to include it all in this or ANY forum.

To continue to deny that blown MOSFET's were present in the device is an outright lie, as supported by the inventor's own statement linked too above.

The only LIE is that the MOSFET's were blown.  And unlike you we can PROVE that lie.  It will be our first video demonstration.  That's a promise.  VERY easy to show this and frankly I'll enjoy doing so.  You'll all be shown up for being somewhat less than competent in all that so called 'analysis' that you flaunt.

Nice to see you put in your bit here Evolving Ape.  Otherwise I'd feel deprived of a decent representation of trolls.  But I'm still waiting for an EFFECTIVE counter argument on any point at all.  It would be a really nice change.

Rosie Pose

[mrsean2k]

My data is freely available to any one in the whole wide world.  It is all of it transferable from my flash drive.  Send me your flash drive - I'll send you our data. No way can I make the information available otherwise.  There's just WAY too much of it.

What size flash drive do you need and where do I send it?


ETA: And naturally I'll cover the cost of return postage. Just tell me how and where to send the money.

[poynt99]

Most of the time with scoposcopy, the DC component of the observed signal is of interest. This would be especially true when observing the Gate drive of a MOSFET, as they are DC voltage dependent. DC coupling therefore is the coupling method of choice in MOST cases, unless for specific reasons (such as wanting to observe a small AC riding on a large DC), AC coupling is more suitable.

AC / DC Coupling on an Oscilloscope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkq-fvb5-NI

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What size flash drive do you need and where do I send it?


ETA: And naturally I'll cover the cost of return postage. Just tell me how and where to send the money.

Email me and I'll tell you more.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Well, now we all see -- again -- why Ainslie, the liar, avoids technical discussions like the 'flu. When she does attempt to engage in them she betrays her ignorance, stupidity and arrogance, and fails miserably so must resort to insults and bloviation. She can't cite facts or external references to support her point because there are none and her points are unsupportable. Her reference to the "locked thread", which she apparently thinks we cannot read, is another lie, for she never addressed these issues properly there, either. Those threads are not only still available for reading-- unfortunately for Ainslie not for editing --- but I have also archived them in case they disappear for some reason.  They are all part of the big database.  The old threads from Energetic Forum are largely sanitized, since Ashtweth and Aaron and the other editors there have purged the posts that make themselves look bad.

To assert that the GATE SIGNAL TRACE on this apparatus should be AC-coupled is sheer idiocy. The only possible reason for that would be to HIDE the operating conditions of the device. IN ADDITION..... to display this gate signal, which cannot go past about +/- 15 volts under the BEST conditions with that FG, at a channel setting of FIFTY VOLTS per division is also either an attempt to hide something about the data or another expression of oscilloscope incompetency.... or both. She again betrays that she doesn't understand the AC/DC coupling functions, what they are used for, what their effects are on trace position and scope math, nor apparently does she understand the difference between AC and DC at all !!

How would Ainslie display, at proper resolution, a DC signal that was, say, a steady and unimportant 300 volts DC, but had an important 0.5 volt p-p time-varying ripple on top of it? (Why am I even asking this question? I might as well try to eat oxtail soup with a knife.)

Ainslie betrays her arrogance when she refuses to consult with LeCroy experts, just as she has refused in the past to consult with Tektronix experts, or even to read information from Agilent/HP about the workings and uses of FG offsets. She will NEVER perform any action that has the potential to prove that she is wrong, even to the point of stopping her ears and covering her eyes and spinning around humming loudly, as she's been doing for the past weeks here.

Ainslie, picowatt is under no obligation to show YOU anything, and your whining about that is ludicrous, since you haven't shown ANYTHING since your demo video that you claim you didn't even post (but we all know you did). YOU are the one making claims of extraordinary performance, so YOU have the burden of proof. If someone like me CHOOSES to refute you, you get no mileage out of demanding that they do anything more or differently. The only legitimate thing for you to do is to SHOW SOMETHING CONCRETE, like credible external references or demonstrations of your own that support your points. BUT YOU CANNOT !! So you fall back on your tried-and-true tactics of the scurrilous insult, the veiled or not-so-veiled threat, and the page after page of irrelevant arrogant bloviation.

And PW has not even reported his practical work or even alluded to it, other than to confirm that he has received his mosfets. HE IS ASKING AINSLIE ABOUT HER WORK on practical grounds, asking important questions about HER DATA and HER CLAIMS that have nothing to do with anything PW is doing on his bench or in his armchair. And, in fact, it's not even necessary to leave one's armchair at all to see for oneself that Ainslie's claims are incoherent and bogus... the only reason to bother to repeat the experiment at all is in a vain attempt to illustrate how to do it _properly_ and to try to convince Ainslie herself, and that is indeed futile and vain.