Testing the TK Tar Baby

[WilbyInebriated]

Yeah, a lead balloon is an appropriate metaphor for your sailing skills, isn't it.

actually the lead balloon metaphor was for your repeated use of logical fallacy, you have been changing the subject since i mentioned that rose's heater circuit was more efficient than your crappy little tesla coil.

But here's something more appropriate for this thread, you jive turkey-baster, you.

i'd say this is more appropriate for this thread... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixg2ukmiKc

Oh, I love those post-posting edits, don't you? Windex for the soul, that is what that is. Scrub it clean like a cool breeze in your face.

i know you do, i see you do it all the time...


troll response in 3... 2... 1...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Little TK,

She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.

But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.

Not actually.  Your own efforts at so called 'documentation' of my work is all the proof that's needed that you guys can spin data any way you choose.  No need to refer to facts.  I didn't let my offer to Stefan lapse. I simply changed my mind.  His preferred editorial bias was beginning to bother me.

Keeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.

Again.  Not actually.  It seems that all that's needed is the apparatus or close inspection of the apparatus to enable replications.  Unlike you the genuine researcher doesn't first rampage through public threads with overly abundant evidence of calumny and malice - before he asks for more evidence.  Such bad manners does not, usually, generate an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.

Which reminds me.  I need to repost a post of mine - lest the public think for one minute that you're in a position to comment on anything at all.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here it is again.  I'll try and get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all. 

And Guys,

Just a gentle reminder.  Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory.  Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement.  And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access. 

That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.

What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance.  The significance is this.  EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy.  And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[picowatt]

Here it is again.  I'll try and get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all. 

And Guys,

Just a gentle reminder.  Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory.  Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement.  And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access. 

That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.

What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance.  The significance is this.  EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy.  And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

You most definitely have shown no proof of "COP=infinity", you have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", which, during the measurement thereof, did not account for lead inductance in the connect and interconnect leads to the battery.  Your continued bastardization of the term "COP" is improper, incorrect, and very misleading.  Shame on you.

"Infinity" is a very, very large number.  I suggest you stick to claiming you have managed to make the LeCroy display a "negative mean power measurement".  Again, you may have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", but you provide nothing to back up a claim of "COP=infinity".

Just as you refuse to learn how your Q2 operates and how the 'scope is displaying +12 volts to Q1 in FIG3, you refuse to learn what is provided in .99's analysis of the "negative mean power measurement" that you, as well as TK, have managed to measure.

Also, that letter you wrote to your "lab" is precious.  So full of non-sensical, non-technical, useless information.  Do you really believe stating that the FG should be at its "extreme settings" means anything at all?  How about stating period, duty cycle, offset, peak to peak swing, Q2 bias current, real numbers and settings that a lab could actually reproduce?  Anyone at a "reputable" lab receiving that letter would only chuckle and grin.

The errors regarding Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7, and your total inability to either learn or accept how Q2 is biased on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the Q2 source are inexcusable.   

I stand by my assertion in your locked thread, you are indeed "not very receptive to learning".  In fact, you would need to learn more about 'scopes, FG's and MOSFET's just to realize how unreceptive to learning you truly are.

[picowatt]

Dear readers,

I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.

She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly.  Now she wants some method to test this.  An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy.  Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly. 

In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on.  The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on.  Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic.  There can be no other explanation.  This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.   

Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in)  is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly.  I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.

From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.

She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on.  Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.

In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR.  The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR.  This is as plain as day for all to see.  Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2,  She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal.  The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR").  All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR. 

When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7).  Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate.  There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.

When the Fg output is a negative voltage,  the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off.  Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).  When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) .  However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG.  This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG.  Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it.  Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation.  Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements).  As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen.  As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases.  The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias.  (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why.  And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)

But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed.  She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense.  The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage.  The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth.  Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.

I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected.  Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".

It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).

These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".

PW

   

"I'll try to get this up at regular intervals just to remind you all"