QuoteI lost my password - YET AGAIN - and have only JUST managed to get back in here.  What an ordeal.  I really need to get this password thing standardised.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/106-onwards-and-upwards.html

Evidence of competence...  YET AGAIN ?

QuoteI must admit to feeling a bit disheartened at the moment.  I can't get my circuit to take any energy at all from the battery and I do not have the skills to do the required trouble shooting.  Hopefully this will be fixed later on today.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/103-just-sharing-bleak-morning-mood.html

Evidence of blown mosfets, perhaps? YET AGAIN ? And you don't have the skills to change a mosfet, check your clipleads, make sure your instruments are even turned on? That I do believe.

picowatt
This statement of yours is somewhat contradicted by the fact.  Here's the statement...

Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 09:11:21 AM1.  I never said you couldn't solder

And here's where you actually DID imply my lack of soldering competence...

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 01:57:06 AMI believe, regarding the horizontal measurement, that you stated even an 8 year old could understand it.  I have indeed taught 8 year olds how to use a 'scope.  I have taught pre-schooler's how to solder.  All of them were more receptive to learning than you.

All of which, in any event, is utter nonsense.  I doubt you've ever taught anyone at all on an official level.  For that you'd need to be credentialed.  You're not.

Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2012, 09:11:21 AM2.  I never used, stated, or referred to "intellectual competence"

What then is this inference?...

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AM
Of course their parents knew.  They did very well sitting on my lap...THEY had a functional intelligence.

The inference is CLEAR.  My own functional intelligence is LESS THAN A SIX YEAR OLD'S.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AM3.  I never said you could not read, write, or do arithmetic.

I KNOW this.  What you stated is that those children you apparently 'trained' - DID have a 'functional intelligence'.  Which by definition means that they had an adult competence at 'reading, writing and arithmetic'.  By INFERENCE - therefore - I DO NOT. Remember?  'THEY had a functional intelligence'?  Your statement?  Quoted above?  And if it is THEY that have that functional intelligence then you are implying that I DON'T. And you think this is exempt from SLANDER?

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMI would advise you, however, to quit misquoting peolpe and/or putting your words in their mouths, as it may cause one to question your ability to read.

The evidence is there.  I have NOT misquoted you.  I have an adequate 'reading competence'.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMIn the end they did very well by themselves, but always supervised.  I think you should eat a hat just as you said you would.

NO danger of that ever being needed.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMYou seem to be a person who loves to "dish it out" using your written "death by a thousand cuts" digs and jabs, but humorlous and unable to "take any" at all.  That is merely an opnion based on observation.

I am not at all sure what any of this means.  Perhaps a 'rewrite'?  If you're that petty?  Then at least one could make head or tail of your sense - if there is any.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMDo you care to talk about anything technical?  Now that the issue with how to read the LeCroy screen captures is fully resolved as being just as I attempted to make you understand, in your first paper, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3 when the 'scope capture indicates it should be?

Let's first deal with some pertinent issues.  What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMAs you said you always admit when you are a wrong, this is an excellent opportunity for you to do so.

I am not wrong. Unfortunately.  You, on the other hand are PROFOUNDLY wrong.  On many many levels but including those technical levels.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMI have never threatened you.  Possibly you do have a long memory, but if you think I have ever threatened you, your memory is not at all accurate.  Therefore, if you think I have or would bother to threaten you, it demonstrates paranoia.

And now you're compounding the felony of slander to include allegations of 'lunacy'.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMI was particularly referring to your inference that a break in at your location was somehow related to "hatred" from posters and during that inference I was mentioned.

I am the subject of a hate blog orchestrated by Mookie - who has an IP address that links directly to senior management at ESKOM.  ESKOM are our local utility suppliers. They are also bulldozing contracts for an expansion to their nuclear power stations.  These contracts will cost our country trillions of rands.  It will impoverish our country for generations to come.  And I am vociferous in my objections to this.  Especially in the light of cold fusion technology. MOOKIE runs the 'hate blog'.  You all subscribe.  That and the context of this thread is continual proof of that 'HATE'.  Your posts are continual proof of 'spin'.  Since that intruder DID NOT TAKE ANYTHING - while we had many valuables within easy reach - including antique silver and other tangibles - then one questions the PURPOSE of that break in.  In as much as he was 'ARMED' and 'DANGEROUS' then it was a personal attack.  Why?  And who was he?  So.  IF I then draw conclusions related to that hateful incident and to the the apparent lack of personal popularity with those subscribers on that hate blog -  orchestrated by MOOKIE - then I think I have good reason.  And it most certainly makes me wonder why it is that those such as you are SO anxious to promote the 'spin' of my stupidity and lack of training.  And why it is that you WILL not do a fair and reasonable analysis of those papers.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMJust as you are wrong on many accounts related to technical matters.

I am NOT wrong on technical matters.  You, TK, Poynty Point and MileHigh are wrong on technical matters.  Many of them.  And I have yet to get the opportunity to argue them.  You haven't even GOT there.  Only Poynty has acknowledged where they're pointing.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMyou are as well wrong regarding your personal assessment of me.  But even in this post of yours, you again threaten me.  Nice...

I am NOT wrong.  And I DO NOT THREATEN YOU.  And INDEED you have threatened me personally and our work specifically.  And the hell of being adult is that one becomes personally accountable.  Unless - of course - like TK - you had managed to keep your address hidden.  All I need to do picowatt is run our COP>17 test - and run a series of tests to refute sundry arguments that you've included in this thread and OTHERS.  Then TRUST ME - you will be called to account on many levels - INCLUDING those actions that you threatened to take and those actions that you actually DID take.  FTC cannot harm our work.  He hasn't got the know how.  And his spite is so excessive it mitigates against his credibility.  TK also has more bark than bite.  More ego than good judgement.  And he actually does a really good job of advertising our work.  But YOU?  You did indeed do damage.  That time is ripening when there will be substantial proof of EXACTLY the role you played.  It is the inevitable cost of adulthood that one actually is ALWAYS acountable.

Quote from: picowatt on April 26, 2012, 02:46:11 AMAnd those kids did become proficient at soldering, that was but their first learning experience I described, as you said they could not be taught.

Which I'm sure is true.  But they would have had to be in their early to mid teens before they were allowed to be let loose.  A child is not expected to have the manual dexterity required to manipulate a solder iron.  It's an ABSURD proposal.
Rosie Pose

My Dear Rosemary,

Just can't admit you're wrong, can you?

As to the rest, a quote comes to mind, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

And please do show me a quote where I in any way threatened you.

As to a threat to your "work", if you are referring to the truth regarding the technical nature of its operation and the data provided, sometimes the truth does indeed hurt, so to speak.

Good Day