Guys,

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
Polly thinks I am "criminally accountable" for something. I think that is an ACTIONABLE SLANDER and that she should be very very careful in her accusations, because I HAVE PROOF of everything I've ever said here.... AND SHE DOES NOT.

At best - this is an 'unsupported allegation'.  He has claimed that I am a 'high school drop out'.  He has named me 'polly parrot'.  He has stated that I 'hallucinate'... with 'words' - no less?  LOL.  And that's just some of those terms chosen from a list of expletives and invectives and claims that are easily disproved.  And there are MANY others - especially as they relate to our technology.  ALL of them EASILY disproved.  All of them ACTIONABLE.  All of them thereby SLANDEROUS and CRIMINAL.  And this is being ACTIVELY encouraged by our Harti.  Why?  Why all that preferred editorial bias?  It is certainly all food for thought. 

Regards as ever,
Rosemary

My dear Leon,

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:12:20 PM
No, Polly, as we have been telling you FOR YEARS NOW, and supporting what we say with references to IEEE documents, ASTM and Agilent documents.... YOU LIE WHEN YOU CLAIM TO USE STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
You refuse to decouple your batteries properly and you do not test your battery's charge state properly and you continually make errors about RATES and QUANTITIES, power and energy.

Come up with some external support for your assertions that we--- all of us--- are wrong about this. YOU CANNOT, and you have never done so and you will never do so.

Just as you will never perform any real tests.

Not only will we do our tests - but having done so - we will then call on you to make a public apology and a public retraction of every single SLANDEROUS allegation you have ever made.  Either you will be accountable - or we will ask to Harti to MAKE you accountable.  He has, after all, given you some extraordinary license to flaunt the required forum guidelines.  And while that CERTAINLY attracts a disproportionate amount of interest in your readers - it ALSO polarises opinions on an emotional level.  Science is NOT emotional.  I look forward to conducting my own thread here which will have NONE of your emotional 'spin' and it will, by contrast - be entirely dedicated to rather dry and even rather boring science.  I am OLD.  And before I die it is my mission to prove that our multiple claims related to our technology not only require but DESERVE respect.  What you are doing is a paraded effort to DISRESPECT me and our technology in the forlorn hopes that this will somehow diminish those claims and thereby bury our technology.  It would ONLY be effective if you were more 'balanced' in your approach.  Thankfully you've been that 'reckless' that over enthusiastic with that 'tar brush' application - that there is NO thinking person who could ever endorse your nonsense.  And our hope is to engage the more balanced reader and member.  Which is in the best interest of science.  As opposed to the emotional engagement that you rely on with this 'spin' and this 'propaganda'.

You and FTC and MileHigh not only indulge in this rather absurd reach into 'deviant' measurement practices - but you also also all of you indulge the most EXTRAORDINARY reach into PROPHESY.  You are forever telling me what I will or won't do - or what we will or won't achieve.  When has this EVER had anything to do with the subject?  Or even with SCIENCE?  It's ONLY a reflection of your own rather immature hopes.

Rosie Pose.

QuoteAnd regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET.  Never has and NEVER did.  This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS.  Again.  Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER.  This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED.  And we shall do so in our demonstrations.  At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement.  It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration.  But just as a point of interest.  TK CLAIMS to be credentialed.  He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism.  That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy.  Slander is a criminal offense.  Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism.  And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.

But haven't you replaced at least two of your mosfets, Ainslie? This is in the public record, even though you have tried hard to cover it up, just like you have never explained your battery fire, just after you got the bright idea to measure ACROSS YOUR LOAD.

Why did you replace those mosfets if they weren't blown? Did you not like their black coloring, perhaps?  But the replacements were black too, weren't they. Oh well. Too bad for you.

Side by side under the same conditions. Tar Baby and NERD. ANY TIME ANY WHERE. We shall see who will be retracting what, won't we.

Or rather... since you aren't actually going to be doing anything but talking and repeating your old tests, not real ones..... there will still be no progress made, but you will continue to make your ridiculous claims without testing them.

Why did you remove a battery, leaving only 48 volts, for your "high heat" test in the video? I know why.  Let's see you perform that same test but with your full 72 volt battery pack. YOU CANNOT, because your Q1 mosfet will overheat and fail.... again.

Is there something stopping you from opening "your own" thread right now? Is there something you are afraid of? Like not having any readers or comments? Why don't you try it and see what happens. I PROMISE YOU I WILL NOT POST IN IT AT ALL, no matter how much you lie about me and my work.

But unless you start posting SOMETHING besides your word salad soon... even Wilby might eventually conclude that you are just another squawking parrot, full of noise and fury but ultimately signifying nothing at all.

We have already EXHAUSTED this argument.  LONG BACK.  The function generator does NOT APPLY 12 VOLTS DC to Q1 during that 'extended' oscillation test in our paper.  That voltage reading depends on required 'qualification' in terms of the chosen coupling and in terms of the applied offset of the function generator.  IT IS A STANDARD function - and from the evidence it seems that you yourself have replicated this.  Why then do you ask?

Therefore I absolutely DO NOT undestand this question of yours...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PM
How, then, do you explain it, Ainslie? How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown?

Are you now saying that you have NOT managed to replicate this?  I distinctly recall you showing us an identical waveform.  Was I hallucinating? Again?  Or did you simply show a small section of an oscillation precisely because you COULD not replicate this condition?  LOL.  Let us know.  One way or the other.  It will be interesting.  Especially in the light of your CLAIM to have REPLICATED EACH AND EVERY claim that is included in our papers.  And more especially as it relates to some of those videos of yours. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PMPerhaps it's miswired, or perhaps the probes aren't connected properly, or maybe even the LOAD ITSELF is open. I don't know... but I do know that your scopeshot shows NO CURRENT FLOWING. The most likely reason is that YOUR MOSFET CANNOT HANDLE THE HEAT when you are using 72 volts and a positive gate drive. Why else would you remove a battery to make only 48 volts in your demo of that mode?

We can demonstrate that condition of zero output from the supply with the application from 24 volts up to 72 volts tested.  At no stage does the MOSFET even get significantly  WARM.  And that's Q1 which has NO significant heat sink to speak of.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PMPolly Parrot Ainslie squawked,

This phrase is SLANDEROUS and entirely unacceptable and not only needs to be retracted but also requires an apology.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2012, 11:09:03 PMAnd IN ADDITION I am reporting this post to our kind host.

I was relying on you doing so.  Someone needs to bring your slander to his attention.  It is in breach of forum guidelines and it is entirely unacceptable - let alone unprofessional and even criminal.

Rosie Pose

edited