Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Sorry, I get very touchy when I see wording from someone else's that was there, changed or missing.

As I posted this happened to me before from Rosemary and others.

FTC

FTC,

Yes, that seems to be her SOP...  misquote or misrepresent what others say.

Just as she got on you the other day for not putting up a full quote of her's or some such thing, when, afterall, you even posted a link to the full text from which you took the quote.

She, on the other hand, feels free to make wildly false claims of statements or assertions by others with no quote or source info whatsoever.

And, by the way, after reading her blog #89 that you put up and referenced a few posts back, I do not believe her story regarding the true schematic for the March demo.  After reading that blog post, I do not think they realized the MOSFETs were wired incorrectly.  Her story after .99 called her on it seems like she was just in "cover your ass" mode.

PW

[picowatt]

Hi Guys,

I've answered picowatt

...here
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2485.html#msg2485

And for the record, you answer nothing.

For going on four months I have been asking why is Q1 not turnng on in FIG3 and FIG7.  You have never even answered this simple and obvious question, that all who look at those figures should ask.

In FIG3, for example, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, +12 volts IS indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  Yet the CSR trace does not indicate the current flow expected if Q1 were turned on.  A similar observation can be made from FIG 7.

In FIG5, all is as it should be, Q1 turns on when the FG output is +5 volts or so.

Q1 must be defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic in FIG3 and FIG7.  There can be no other possible explanation.

Note that the mean for FIG5 is not negative, but it is for FIG3 and FIG7.  From this, one might even be led to believe Q1 was intentionally disconnected, particularly in light of your refusal to address the issue.

You will not even take the time to verify the reading on your 'scope with LeCroy, as it would negate your argument regarding the 'scope being read incorrectly. 

So, what is YOUR answer to the question, "why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3 and FIG7?"

[TinselKoala]

FTC,

Yes, that seems to be her SOP...  misquote or misrepresent what others say.

Just as she got on you the other day for not putting up a full quote of her's or some such thing, when, afterall, you even posted a link to the full text from which you took the quote.

She, on the other hand, feels free to make wildly false claims of statements or assertions by others with no quote or source info whatsoever.

And, by the way, after reading her blog #89 that you put up and referenced a few posts back, I do not believe her story regarding the true schematic for the March demo.  After reading that blog post, I do not think they realized the MOSFETs were wired incorrectly.  Her story after .99 called her on it seems like she was just in "cover your ass" mode.

PW

Talk about CYA and spin.... now she's got Yet Another Rationalization for her egregious misconduct around the circuit and the discussions.... 450 or more comments between 22 March and 18 April 2011 ... that took place concerning the WRONG, significantly wrong, schematics that had been claimed at that time.

Take a look at this bunch of mendacity and spin:

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie said,

Hi Guys,

It seems that apart from the usual invective and bluster our Little TK has NO ANSWER?  WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?

Lie, Lie, Lie, but never notice that you have indeed been answered and your little bogus "challenge" has been met many times long ago over and over by many people using multiple hardware methods and instruments and even simulations. You lie when you claim that I have no answer; the answer has been given. YOU, however, lying Little Miss Mendacious Mosfet, have NO ANSWERS for the many important questions that have been asked of you lately... and for the past decade or more.

He DENIES that he ever claimed that the function generator was responsible for all that energy.

That is right, Ainslie, I deny that I ever claimed that. And you cannot CITE ANY PLACE WHERE I DID. So you are lying, yet again, with every post you make.
"All that energy".... all WHAT energy? You have energy from your battery, and you have energy from the function generator during the oscillations. Neither of them is "all that", that YOU have claimed. You don't know what you are talking about.

He CLAIMS that I EVER referred to what he calls his ALTOID test. (That name's to shake loose from the stigma of 'The Tar Baby)

First, TAR BABY and ALTOID are separate creations. TAR BABY is a duplicate of your OWN NERD CIRCUIT. There is no STIGMA attached to Tar Baby or the name itself, except that it shows that you are a racist and an ignorant fool.
Second, Altoid is the ONLY "single mosfet" circuit that I have worked with, and to which you HAVE INDEED referred many times. YOU LIE AGAIN, Ainslie, Liar. YOU CLAIMED IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT I USED NEGATIVE GATE SIGNAL TO MAKE THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE SINGLE MOSFET CIRCUIT: ALTOID. That was a lie that I have refuted with a scopeshot PROVING your lie, and you just brush it off, never mentioning it again.
You are such a baldfaced liar that you even LIE ABOUT YOUR LIES.

He ALLEGES that we made false claims in our published papers.

5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours, Ainslie. Boiling water, Ainslie. Those are just two; there are many many more. If you wish to dispute the "allegations" that those claims are false... then DO SO, with facts and outside references. YOU CANNOT. You have indeed made many false claims AND I CAN PROVE IT, and have done so over and over. Your bogus calculations are everywhere. The "no energy discharged from the battery" when your own scope shots show a decrease in battery voltage and a large current flow.... your continuing lies run throughout your "papers".

He ALLEGES that we're misleading our members.

And so you are, by, for example, that very post, and others, where you MISREPRESENT the work that I am doing and you MISREPRESENT AND LIE about the comments that others, like PW are making. IN addition, your claims about running your circuit on a 555 timer and making the oscillations are also outright lies.

He ALLEGES that there are still unanswered questions raised by picowatt and Poynty Point.

Also a very true allegation. There certainly are MANY unanswered questions that you continue to dodge from both of those persons, as well as from me. Why don't you ANSWER? It is because you cannot, without admitting that you have nothing and are nothing.

He ALLEGES that he's found nothing of interest in any replications and circuit variants other than the miracle of his messy builds.

You are indeed an idiot. The only thing of real scientific interest in this whole affair is the remarkable depth and development of your delusional system and your textbook presentation of the Dunning - Kruger syndrome. And the "messy build", AINSLIE, is what makes your "oscillations" possible in the first place. A properly laid out power mosfet arrangement WILL NOT OSCILLATE, you insulting idiot with no technical skills at all.

And FINALLY he ALLEGES that I keep mouldy old cheese.  LOL.  Not sure that's entirely relevant - but he's right.  I do.  I LOVE mature cheeses.

Actually I am ALLEGING that YOU ARE a moldy old cheese, Ainslie, all dried out cracked and withered with your sour bitterness and mendacious stench.

Anyway.  And so it goes.  Spin, and more spin and yet more spin.  The poor readers there are mesmerised by the sheer confusion of his argument.  And they keep hoping - somewhat absurdly - that TK is ACTUALLY supporting over unity.  It's comical.  And it's sad.  Both.  Meanwhile, for the record - there was an UNEQUIVOCAL ALLEGATION by picowatt (the picointellect with picoaccrditation) and  by TK (the pickle of no mean dimensions) that energy was discharged from the battery through the Gate of Q1 to the Source Leg of Q2 - alternatively from the Source leg of Q2 to the Gate Leg of Q1 - on numerous occasions.

THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
GIVE THE REFERENCE AINSLIE. POST A LINK TO THE PLACE WHERE EITHER OF US SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Of course the AC can pass the gate capacitance but that is not what you are talking about, you are simply misquoting and LYING about it again, responding to your hallucinations and your shallow lack of understanding of what is going on. You have no idea what you are talking about and since you DON'T BOTHER TO READ THE WORDS, you just look at the shapes, it's no wonder that you remain so willfully ignorant.

And the former 'path' enabled through the terminal and probe of our function generators.  LOL.  For some reason he's no longer arguing this.  Can't think why.  It dominated whole chapters of his absurd thread.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

What are you talking about, you confused hallucinator? My argument re the FG has NOT CHANGED, neither, as far as I can see has PWs. YOU LIE AGAIN.

Notice that Ainslie NEVER provides references for any of the outrageous claims and misquotes and misrepresentations of the statements and work of others. It is because SHE CANNOT SUPPORT HER ALLEGATIONS, they are simply sheer lies.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys,

Please refer to this link written in answer to picowatt's last post.

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2487.html#msg2487

Regards,
Rosemary