Testing the TK Tar Baby

[polln8r]

Rosemary,

     I actually have taken the time to go all the way back to when this circuit was first introduced in this forum, and I've even looked at the posts in that other forum where concurrent discussions were happening. What I saw was this: Various people did a lot of work to repeat the results you had claimed. A lot of people got excited about the circuit... you even gave credit to TK for having generated this excitement. Eventually, conclusions would be made that the claims, unfortunately, were untrue. And, whenever this happened, you called whichever experimenter incompetent or unqualified.
     It is really no wonder that some of these highly trained and obviously well-qualified experts have become soured by your statements, and, though I do not condone nor do I support the way some of them vent this frustration toward you I can hardly blame them.
     It should be obvious, by now, that I am a layman at best. Whether your circuit works is nothing I could vouch for or refute. I do, however, see many tests being done, and many results being published and talked about by people who undeniably know what they're talking about. I do not, on the other hand, see much of anything of actual substance from your side of the argument... I don't consider calling into question somebody's credentials substance.
     I know you've sent your device off and are awaiting its return and whatnot and this-and-that, but if you really want the general layperson public that looks at these forums to believe you have what you claim, you're really going to have to show us something. I really wish you would.

polln8r.

p.s. @all... I know the red highlighting tool seems like a good tool for expressing anger and frustration, but it is hard as hell to read!

[picowatt]

And why do you not know more about electroncs?

This post of your's is a what all have come to expect from you.  Note that you provide a quote of what I actually said, and in the next line turn it into your nonsense, as if that was what was actually said.



Guys - I think picowatt is referring to this response.  As he's NOT inclined to make you fully conversant with the problem - then allow me...


Quote from: picowatt on July 06, 2012, 04:33:24 PM
Your response is incorrect.

As has been stated over and over and over... Q2 is biased on when the FG output applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2.

Here's the full response which somewhat detracts from his claim that there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q2. 


Quote from: Rosie on July 06, 2012, 04:14:32 PM
And may I add - for edification to the picowatts of this world - IF there is a negative signal as NOW CLAIMED -  applied to the gate of Q2 it would NOT conduct that forward biased (clockwise) current flow (outlined in blue) PRECISELY because that NEGATIVE SIGNAL WOULD REPEL the current discharge from the battery supply.  The battery would not be able to conduct.  The blue trace shows the battery conducting.

I took the trouble to emphasise the argument by highlighting it.

Regards,
Rosemary


Nowhere did I say anything about a negative signal to the gate of Q2.  No one has ever stated that.  Only you.

This post of your makes one question your ability to read as well as comprehend.  Or are you intentionally misleading?

If we have to talk in fairy tales for you to understand, Ms Gate is tied to ground by Mr Wire.  In order for Ms Gate to be greater than Mr. Source, Mr Source must go below ground.

A negative voltage applied to the SOURCE TERMINAL of Q2 is what turns on Q2.   

Everyone has made this point so many times, a pre-schooler could have grasped it by now.

Be well

[picowatt]

Another non-answer:

IF there is no validity in my argument then that easy test will prove it.  IF there is validity in my argument then that easy test will prove it.  Either way - it will be shown.  THEN only is it appropriate to comment.  Anything that is predicted in advance of that test is spurious and irrelevant and falls under the category of 'fortune telling'.  Which as no relevance to science.  In effect you can only ALLEGE that I'm wrong. I can PROVE that you're wrong.  And I look forward to doing so.


I do not "allege" or "predict" that there is a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and FIG7, I state it as readily apparent fact.

Anyone with the ability to use a 'scope and read a schematic can see that there is sufficient gate drive being applied to Q1 to turn it on in FIG3 and FIG7, and yet the CSR trace indicates Q1 is not turning on.

Q1 is working just fine in FIG5, from the month prior.  But something is definitely wrong in FIG3 and FIG7.

In FIG3 and FIG7, Q1 was either non-functional, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.  There are no other possible explnations.

Instead of addressing this in a scientific and ethical manner, you chose to "shoot the messenger".

It's no big deal, it's just another error...

Take a break, be well.

ADDED: Any word from the "lab"?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

     I actually have taken the time to go all the way back to when this circuit was first introduced in this forum, and I've even looked at the posts in that other forum where concurrent discussions were happening. What I saw was this: Various people did a lot of work to repeat the results you had claimed. A lot of people got excited about the circuit... you even gave credit to TK for having generated this excitement. Eventually, conclusions would be made that the claims, unfortunately, were untrue. And, whenever this happened, you called whichever experimenter incompetent or unqualified.
     It is really no wonder that some of these highly trained and obviously well-qualified experts have become soured by your statements, and, though I do not condone nor do I support the way some of them vent this frustration toward you I can hardly blame them.
     It should be obvious, by now, that I am a layman at best. Whether your circuit works is nothing I could vouch for or refute. I do, however, see many tests being done, and many results being published and talked about by people who undeniably know what they're talking about. I do not, on the other hand, see much of anything of actual substance from your side of the argument... I don't consider calling into question somebody's credentials substance.
     I know you've sent your device off and are awaiting its return and whatnot and this-and-that, but if you really want the general layperson public that looks at these forums to believe you have what you claim, you're really going to have to show us something. I really wish you would.

polln8r.

p.s. @all... I know the red highlighting tool seems like a good tool for expressing anger and frustration, but it is hard as hell to read!

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2566.html#msg2566

[MileHigh]

Rosemary,

The least qualified of everyone in the bunch is YOU.  You are so unqualified that you still don't understand how the Q2 array switches on and you still cannot put a single coherent sentence together that references the gates and sources of Q1 and Q2 that makes sense.

The fact that you claim in the name of "science" that we have to wait for your testing about the mechanism for Q2 turning on is laughable and traji-comic.  All that you have to do is understand how N-Channel MOSFETs work, period.  It's just an example of your ridiculous pigheadedness.

You are a hapless pigheaded woman with zero qualifications pushing nonsense.

Or, you are a well paid agent put here to discredit all free energy research by your outlandish quixotic explosion of ridiculousness.

MileHigh