Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 06, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
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...

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

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

Regards,
Rosemary

As I said, you are incorrect.

There is no problem...

I am astounded at what Ainslie has been posting lately.

But... PW: did you let this one slip by? Notice that she is affirming that a 12 volt signal to Q1gate/Q2source will TURN Q1 ON, and she's pointing to current flow scopeshots as evidence.



BUT..... what about those scopeshots that we keep asking about where Q1 IS CLEARLY GETTING 12 volts but is not turning on and passing current?

WHAT ABOUT THOSE, AINSLIE.

Quote from: picowatt on 6 July 2012 at 05:43:22

QuoteTherefore, the positive voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] by the FG cannot go any higher than approximately +12.5 volts regardless of the FG open circuit voltage.

Ainslie replied:

Quote
IF the voltage at the 'Gate of Q1 Source of Q2' (as he puts it) is + 12.5 volts - then it most certainly WILL conduct current from the battery supply irrespective of the 'drain voltage'.  And this is easily verifiable.  Just look at the waveform across the shunts.  They're showing evidence that is diametrically AGAINST this ALLEGATION.

And then (now) TK asked,

WHAT ABOUT FIGURE 3, THEN, AINSLIE? WHY DOES IT NOT SHOW CURRENT SINCE THE Q1 IS GETTING A VOLTAGE OF +12 VOLTS?
Your own scopeshots show, over and over, EVIDENCE that is diametrically AGAINST YOUR CLAIMS, you bloviating, lying, willfully ignorant autohalfdidact.

You are contradicting yourself YET AGAIN with your ignorant and illconsidered comments.

It's also really too bad that the mosfet common drain voltage is STILL, after all these years, so confusing to you that you cannot even bring yourself to show it on most of your shots and you cannot discuss it coherently even to this day.

Ainslie, you utter liar and ultimate hypocrite. EVERY ARGUMENT I MAKE is or can be supported with many references to outside authority and/or experiments that ANYONE CAN DO FOR THEMSELVES and/or to YOUR OWN WORDS, Ainslie you hypocrite and liar.

YOU, on the other hand, have NEVER been able to refute a single argument of mine with REFERENCES or REPEATABLE WORK OF YOUR OWN.
NEVER.
Not even once. You've never been able even to correct your own calculations, much less find problems with mine. You've never presented work of sufficient quality to pass muster at an eighth grade science fair, much less the discussions at the level of this forum or even EF. And you continue to lie about and misrepresent the work of others.

YOU are constantly using ONLY DENIAL, and DENIAL ONLY, as your main mode of debate, and THIS PRESENT POST ITSELF which I have reproduced below is ample evidence of that.

And in addition, your late-night ramblings that you later come back and edit are ample evidence that you like to get yourself a bit tipsy in the evenings, if not outright garrulously drunk.

It doesn't take more than a couple of posts for her to contradict herself. But that's easy to do when her argument isn't coherent in the first place.

First she says that she doesn't claim her theory predicts that zipons are somehow Higgs bosons and challenges anyone to show where she did say it..... then she goes ahead and claims it anyway.

This has gone beyond the amusing. It's simply pathetic. Next, Ainslie will be soliciting the Nobel committee wondering why her prize has been delayed.

I am also highly amused by this present "conversation". Hasn't this happened before, too? Several times, in fact; enough to qualify it as part of the AinsLie Syndrome, a subset of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I mean, of course, that Ainslie has to post links here to her comments there to get any discussion, but nobody is discussing her comments there, just here.

It's a continuing example of her idiocy and lack of a cooperative attitude. She can lie and distort and misrepresent all she likes "over there" and unless someone is also aware of this thread, there is no dissenting voice allowed at all. In other words, she's standing on her own private soapbox and lying through her toothless gums about her work, my work, fuzzy's work, the analyses of .99 and PW, and all the usual old lies about the COP >17 claims are re-emerging as well.

Lunacy, is what it is.

ETA: It's sort of like Munchausen's By Proxy.  She's doing Dunning-Kruger by Proxy, evidently, putting her own stupid ignorant arrogant interpretations of words into other peoples' mouths and accusing them of saying what she herself has hallucinated.