Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2013, 03:32:23 AM
That is because she makes no sense. She can't even remember all her own lies any more.Her engineers are imaginary. You won't be hearing anything coherent from them, or her.I've been looking at my archive.... it's amazing how insulting she has been to .99 at various times over the years. Not to mention to you or to me. Anybody reading those things coming from her would think twice about dealing with her at all, the issue of the veracity of her claims notwithstanding. She has attacked all of her former "open source" collaborators with acid-dripping fangs.Indeed. I well recall the trouble over her bogus 555 timer circuit in the Quantum magazine.
I think it's appropriate to call her Ains-lie from now on, since she lies in one way or another with every post she makes.

But we have .99's acknowledgement that running at the long period depicted in Figure 3 will likely blow a mosfet, so he won't even do it.

We also have this forum post from Ains-lie, where she describes the _very same_ experimental trial but couples it with SCRN 0342. This shows the mosfet is wired in and working.... at that time.

Note that she once again refers to the temperature of the water: 104 degrees C.

TK,

I fully agree that a damaged MOSFET is a very real possibility, but strictly speaking, if only FIG3 and the schematic are in evidence, we can only know that Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.

However, as you have shown, there is a very good case in support of Q1 being damaged prior to the FIG3 capture.

PW

Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2013, 03:45:22 AM
This is totally untrue.  It is her credibility and integrity that I have dismissed because of this issue.  Particularly with regard to her continuous denials that FIG3 shows +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and her barrage of insults from the time this issue was first raised.

But now that she does agree that +12 volts IS being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, I am sure she will soon be offering apologies for all the insults and denigrations she has directed my way over this... and possibly even thank me for taking the time to try to teach her how to read her scope.

PW

Don't hold your breath, waiting for that to happen. Give her time, she'll twist it around to where _she_ has been telling _you_ that the mosfet is blown and _that_ is why she's getting COP > infinity.

Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2013, 03:57:12 AM
TK,

I fully agree that a damaged MOSFET is a very real possibility, but strictly speaking, if only FIG3 and the schematic are in evidence, we can only know that Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.

However, as you have shown, there is a very good case in support of Q1 being damaged prior to the FIG3 capture.

PW

Also... don't forget that she has _never again_, after those April trials, shown any long Q1 on times or high heat in the load with all six batteries connected. Even the Figure 7 trial on April 30 2011 only used 5 batteries. The latest photos on PESN show only three of the six connected (and some mysterious wires going over to something concealed behind her oscilloscope under a suspiciously-placed bit of bunched up cloth in her neat-as-a-pin home.) She knows the mosfet will blow if she tries to use all six batteries! There is no other reason for her not to do what she has always claimed: use all six batteries to make high heat in the load by having Q1 on for significant time.

"Strictly speaking"... .we have a lot more evidence than just the Figure 3 shot and the schematic.

I really REALLY want to see this apparatus raise 700 mL of Cape Town tap water to 104 degrees C, as Ains-lie has repeatedly claimed it will do.... somehow..... in an open container at near sea level. At 0.12 Watts of energy, yet.

Don't you?

Please do not shoot the messenger, I want to bring this to some sort of conclusion. PS you get an honorable mention TK


http://revolution-green.com/


Please comment , there will not be any moderation apart from personal abuse.