Testing the TK Tar Baby

[mrsean2k]

@you said what

1 - you aren't being asked for identification, just an indicator what level to pitch a response at. From your response I'm assuming you have no qualifications or experience. And that's OK genuine experts have explained these matters in simple terms that only Rosemary is unwilling and / or unable to understand. Anyone else will manage.

2 - my full name is Sean Inglis, my email addresses have been states here several times. I am not anonymous. You're entitled to your opinion Im a nobody, but I'm a nobody with apparently a far better grasp of the situation than you. Insults notwithstanding I don't mind trying to remedy that.

3 - MrSean2k is a hangover from working with Indian contractors who addressed everyone as Mr Dave or Mr Steve. I thought it was quite sweet so I kept it.

Educate yourself, and help gm east from wasting valuable time and effort with false and misleading hope.

[TinselKoala]

I, for one, am glad you are back and posting here, Ainslie, even though by doing so you are again disrespecting our good host, violating TOS, and lying through the few teeth you have left.

Your posting here makes you that much easier to refute.... even though we know it's a continuation of your strategy to attempt to BURY every significant finding we've made here, by pages of your accusations and calumnies and our responses in defense.

The significant finding that you are CURRENTLY trying to bury is the finding that YOU LIED about the schematic used in the daft manuscripts, positioning the FG's black output lead so as to HIDE a current path, just as shown in the Single Mosfet photo and the Demo Video photo.
All  the data you have given in your papers, with the FG lead hooked up NOT AS SHOWN IN THE SCHEMATICS but rather as seen clearly in the photos and video--- are invalid.
You didn't even KNOW that the FG clip location in the video was incorrect until it was pointed out to you and proven. Only then did you make schematics showing it in the right  place... you never actually used this correct hookup for the trials reported in the daft manuscripts.

ETA: And I have never insisted that I be addressed by the honorific that is legitimately mine to use.  And it's not "BASTARD".

[TinselKoala]

You guys were right. She did come back under a fake name.  Yousaidwhat=Rose A

You can see the that the wording seems different, but its her. Mostly it is what is being said and why. I see nobody over there that would come here and say what Yousaidwhat is, except for Rose.

Lol, she just could not take it any longer. She just had to come back under a fake name and the same attitude, and it shows.

And after all the talk of others hacking into her computer, here she tries to deceive Stephan and us in order to have the right to post in a forum she was banned from.

I have to say, I must apologize to some of you guys for things that I had said in the past when defending Rose, I mean Yousaidwhat, same thing. I did not understand her madness. It becomes clearer every day

Mags

No problemo, Mags, we are cool.

Nobody is to be blamed for believing Ainslie initially. We do not normally encounter such blatant errors and lies, so forcefully presented and defended in spite of all contrary evidence. Anyone else would by now be ashamed to show up in public, with that garland of lies hanging from her like a dead albatross around her neck. But Ainslie is so overweeningly arrogant and insufferably willfully ignorant that she doesn't even accept that she's been soundly refuted on every point.

[picowatt]

@Tk
Yeah right.  You need to think that.  I never said you are a bastard.  That would not nearly cover it. 

@MaGs?  Not sure where you fit in yet.  Your posts dont make sense mostly.  We all know what the rest of you are up to.  Now.  Deal with that stuff by Gmeast - Tk you bugger.   Show us what a genius you are.

you guys are really big time losers.  What a waste of time. 

@Ainslie
You dont need me over there.  Your doing fine.

So, should I assume you disagree with something in my recent posts?

Do you dispute my assertions regarding the battery lead inductance and the battery interconnect wire inductance?  Do you dispute the inductance of the batteries?  Do you dispute the fact that in FIG 3 of the first paper, the 'scope capture shows +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1, yet Q1 is not turning on?

Please do share whatever it is you disagree with...

[polln8r]

I, personally, don't think YSW is RA. It seems more likely that he/she is somebody from the e-sp forum (gmeast, perhaps?) And I can't blame a person for thinking they're "defending the person being bullied by all those meanies." That, in and of itself, is an honorable motive indeed. However, they obviously haven't read through the previous threads and seen just how disrespectful RA was to various builders and professionals as soon as their replication results or calculations contradicted hers.

Also, what is it with that forum? Why is it they require one to register and log in to be able to see any of the visuals? Oh, it's so they can obtain your information so they can sue you if they think you've 'slandered' them (Don't believe me? Read their TOS).

I know I won't be signing up anytime soon.

polln8r.