Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Hi Guys,

Just be advised that Glen, like TK - ALWAYS gives insubstantial reference.  It's required for that 'spin'.  If you want an idea of what was ACTUALLY discussed then you'll need to check in on this link.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/232-another-summation-based-on.html

Your logic is quite sound in describing how it is just not possible for thousands of amps to be flowing as the indicated oscillation voltage may lead one to believe.  Afterall, where are the glowing wires that would accompany such large current flows and CSR indications?

In fact, this is one of the greatest arguments in support of '99's analysis as to the cause of the negative mean power measurement as it is being measured.  Inductive reactance.  I fail to see the need for yet another "materials" related theory when inductive reactance readily explains the measurement and is also quite easily confirmed.

   

[MileHigh]

Well I can see how Rosemary is still abusing the definition of the term "troll" and applies it to anybody that disagrees with her.

Quoting Rosemary:

unfortunately MileHigh we'll continue to assume that you're very comfortably advantaged from your own 'slant' that you apply to any energy efficient devices.

What the hell does "energy efficient device" even mean?

You know all, it can be alleged that "Rosemary" is the real paid person here and she is being paid by the big oil companies.  She is part of a fifth column and her mission is to discredit all free energy research.  How could someone be so ridiculously stupid and ignorant about her own circuit?  How can someone be so dense and be caught lying on multiple occasions?  The reason is to cast doubt on all free energy researchers.

So it could be that "Rosemary" is all just a front.  An actress portrayed Rosemary for the few times we saw her and heard her voice.  But beyond that she is just a few psyops agents working hard to make the realm of free energy research look like a bunch of hapless amateurs that are so incredibly stupid that they stage a freak out when they are asked to do a serious power analysis of a single resistor connected to a single battery.

It's just impossible that a saga like this that has been going on for years and has been implicitly discrediting all free energy research can be anything else but a fifth column psyops operation.  Can people be that stupid that they can't even understand how the MOSFETs are wired in their own circuit or they can't even understand the fact that current is flowing through the function generator?

I don't think so, the only reasonable explanation for this comedy of the absurd is that "Rosemary Ainslie" is a fifth column agent planted here to completely discredit all free energy research.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Your logic is quite sound in describing how it is just not possible for thousands of amps to be flowing as the indicated oscillation voltage may lead one to believe.  Afterall, where are the glowing wires that would accompany such large current flows and CSR indications?

In fact, this is one of the greatest arguments in support of '99's analysis as to the cause of the negative mean power measurement as it is being measured.  Inductive reactance.  I fail to see the need for yet another "materials" related theory when inductive reactance readily explains the measurement and is also quite easily confirmed.

Note that in the post she is talking about taking measurements at the mosfet _drain_, something that doesn't appear in the scopeshots we have, except for a few.

(Ever wonder why she doesn't like to show the drain signal, since it carries so much information about mosfet performance? It's not because she ran out of room on the scope screen. It is because of this "anomaly" that she doesn't understand and cannot explain within her logic system.)

This, as I have tried to drive home, illustrates again that she doesn't expect the drain voltage to drop to the negative rail when the mosfet is ON. She thinks the drain voltage measurement should be high when the mosfet is on, since she's measuring the drain-load connection point and the load is ON when it's receiving voltage, right? Hence she's astonished when the drain voltage drops to nearly zero, indicating in her mind that the battery has discharged its entire potential in a few microseconds, requiring oodles and oodles of amps.
In this case, the inductance has nothing to do with her confusion. It is such a basic matter that you can't even believe that someone would make such a fundamental error... but it's true. She thinks that the drain voltage should be HIGH when the mosfet is ON, and the fact that she sees that it isn't is, to her, an enormous anomaly.

At least she finally spelled anomaly right.

[picowatt]

Well I can see how Rosemary is still abusing the definition of the term "troll" and applies it to anybody that disagrees with her.

Quoting Rosemary:

What the hell does "energy efficient device" even mean?

You know all, it can be alleged that "Rosemary" is the real paid person here and she is being paid by the big oil companies.  She is part of a fifth column and her mission is to discredit all free energy research.  How could someone be so ridiculously stupid and ignorant about her own circuit?  How can someone be so dense and be caught lying on multiple occasions?  The reason is to cast doubt on all free energy researchers.

So it could be that "Rosemary" is all just a front.  An actress portrayed Rosemary for the few times we saw her and heard her voice.  But beyond that she is just a few psyops agents working hard to make the realm of free energy research look like a bunch of hapless amateurs that are so incredibly stupid that they stage a freak out when they are asked to do a serious power analysis of a single resistor connected to a single battery.

It's just impossible that a saga like this that has been going on for years and has been implicitly discrediting all free energy research can be anything else but a fifth column psyops operation.  Can people be that stupid that they can't even understand how the MOSFETs are wired in their own circuit or they can't even understand the fact that current is flowing through the function generator?

I don't think so, the only reasonable explanation for this comedy of the absurd is that "Rosemary Ainslie" is a fifth column agent planted here to completely discredit all free energy research.

MileHigh

MH,

You may be on to something.  That would explain her paper being on JNP.  Possibly just an operation to discredit LENR researchers as well.

I'll bet there is a lot on money involved, and quite possibly we are just communicating with some AI software that only spits out frustratingly non-sensical replies.  Sorta' like those search results we sometimes see when the page is just a mish-mash of words intended to attract search engines.

Yes indeed MH, you may be onto something...

[picowatt]

Note that in the post she is talking about taking measurements at the mosfet _drain_, something that doesn't appear in the scopeshots we have, except for a few. This, as I have tried to drive home, illustrates again that she doesn't expect the drain voltage to drop to the negative rail when the mosfet is ON. She thinks the drain voltage measurement should be high when the mosfet is on, since she's measuring the drain-load connection point and the load is ON when it's receiving voltage, right? Hence she's astonished when the drain voltage drops to nearly zero, indicating in her mind that the battery has discharged its entire potential in a few microseconds, requiring oodles and oodles of amps.
In this case, the inductance has nothing to do with her confusion. It is such a basic matter that you can't even believe that someone would make such a fundamental error... but it's true. She thinks that the drain voltage should be HIGH when the mosfet is ON, and the fact that she sees that it isn't is, to her, an enormous anomaly.

At least she finally spelled anomaly right.

TK,

I read her blog post as referring to the observed swings of the oscillation riding on the DC of the battery as indicated by the battery trace of the 'scope.  If there is a +/- 60 volt AC waveform riding on the battery DC, AND there is no significant resistance or reactance betwee the 'scoped measurement point and the batteries, there would indeed have to be a very large amount of current flowing.  But, due to lead and battery inductance, the impedance seen by the oscillations is sufficiently high that AC current flow is much lower than it would be if the impedance was very low.

I do recall some reference to the drain signal later on, but I pretty much quit reading as soon as I saw yet another theory being put forward. 

Recall a while back that when attempts to run her circuit on capacitors discharged the capacitors.  Instead of accepting that as indicating that current was beng drawn by the circuit, she went off on a new theory wheren the circuit needed the "potential" of the battery to operate.

Occam would likely roll over in his grave...

PW