Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys and guests,

Here's a little challenge for our little TK,

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2480.html#msg2480

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Hi Guys and guests,

Here's a little challenge for our little TK,

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2480.html#msg2480

Regards,
Rosemary

Little Miss Mosfet, you are getting far behind on the little challenges. You have been prevaricating for far too long. When are you going to deal with the issues, like the lies you have been posting about my work lately: the false claim that I ever implied that 400 volts or 8 amps would have to pass through your function generator, and the false claim that I used "negative voltage to the gate" of the Altoid single mosfet circuit. What about it, Ainslie, you cannot just make false claims like that and get away with it.
You also are continuing to make false claims in your posted "publication" and you are continuing to mislead your builder as to the true nature of affairs regarding your experimental procedures and circuit performance.

And you have yet to deal with the issue that PW is raising, and that .99 raised as well so long ago:
In PW's words

In FIG 3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the FG channel is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on.  However, during that same portion of the cycle, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace as one would expect if Q1 were turned on.

This can only mean that Q1 is defective, is disconnected, or is not connected as per the provided schematic.

As well, in FIG 7, during the same positive portion of the FG cycle, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn on Q1, and again, no expected current flow is observed at the CSR.

In FIG 5, only +5 volts or so is being applied to the gate of Q1, yet, as one would expect, there is substantial current flow indicated by the CSR.  All is just as would be expected if Q1 is functioning and connected as per the schematic.

So why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7? 

Defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic, those are the ONLY possible explanations as to why no expected current flow thru Q1 is observed in FIG3 and FIG7.

The reader must choose which possibility is most likely, as the author of the paper refuses to even acknowledge the issue, let alone respond intelligently to it.  To date she refuses to even accept the gate voltage reading provided by her own 'scope.       

Challenge, Ainslie? You are far FAR behind, while I've been doing your homework for you for the past several months. Look at all the things I've accomplished that you SHOULD HAVE DONE LONG AGO, like gathering all your scopeshots together and making them available in one place, or like developing the 555 timer version, the continuous oscillation version, the battery bias version, done capacitor tests, battery trials, ENERGY INTEGRALS, all of it, and you've done NOTHING but bloviate and lie and mislead, strewing about multiple different versions of circuits, failing to correct and retract errors, and finally SENDING OFF YOUR APPARATUS to parts unknown... and you expect it back in four days.
You are challenged, all right, mentally and physically, and you aren't up to competing in the real world at all.

Because, you see, what you ask for in your "little challenge" has already been done, many times, in my videos and demonstrations, by .99 in his simulations, and can be done by anyone who tries for themselves. Not the ridiculous 8 amps that you CLAIM falsely, but the normal up to 200 mA or so that we have always been telling you about. It's been done with digital meters, an analog moving coil meter, and by viewing the voltage drop across a CVR in series with the FG's output, and also by using the sim scope current monitor. You are simply wrong in your assertion and your "challenge" is as dried up and out of date as you and your moldy old cheese.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Little TK

Here's another answer for you.

Rosie Pose

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2484.html#msg2484

[picowatt]

And yet another quote from her:

"You will recall that both TK AND picowatt CLAIMED that the function generator was responsible for supplying all that extra energy to the circuit?"

And yet again she demonstrates either ignorance, her inability to read, or her desire to apply her "spin" to what others write.

First, what "extra energy" is she talking about?  Second, anyone would be hard pressed to find any instance where I claimed that the function generator was responsible for "all that extra energy to the circuit".

She is very good about complaining about others not providing complete quotes of hers when they are being discussed, while she herself  continues to just make things up about what others say.





.

[picowatt]

Interesting reading:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

A quote from the above link:

"Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.

It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ â€" which just means that one is unaware of something â€" in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them. Indeed, calling someone “ignorant” shouldn’t really be a pejorative, but intentional and willful ignorance is an entirely different matter.
In practice though, the word “ignorance” has often come to mean “willfull ignorance”, and indeed, in many non-English languages, the word based on the same stem actually mean “willfull ignorance”.)

Depending on the nature and strength of an individual’s pre-existing beliefs, willful ignorance can manifest itself in different ways. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one’s expectations. Often excuses will be made, stating that the source is unreliable, that the experiment was flawed or the opinion is too biased. More often than not this is simple circular reasoning; “I cannot agree with that source because it is untrustworthy because it disagrees with me”.

In other cases, slightly more extreme cases, willful ignorance can involve outright refusal to read, hear or study in any way anything that does not conform to the person’s worldview. With regard to oneself, this can ever extend to fake locked-in syndrome with complete unresponsiveness. Or with regard to others, to outright censorship of the material from others. "