Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And TK - NOR have you answered this post...

And then onto this last scheduled point... NUMBER 4

4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?

(Edit: for a moment there I referenced the wrong scope shot, where she used a 50 second timebase setting-- the one with the blown mosfet. This scopeshot has a 50 millisecond timebase setting. Sorry.)

In answer to 'when does the DC become DC'?  It is DC when it is continually greater than ground for the duration of a switched cycle.  There is no other time.

And 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.

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Polly Parrot squawks and flutters but says nothing true.

Except perhaps that she cannot find my spreadsheet.  So I laugh and laugh and laugh.

Where is your comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance, Polly Parrot?

And your statements about the power continue to betray your abysmal ignorance.

And in addition it is perfectly possible for a person to obtain multiple degrees in different areas of study in the United States. I am sorry that this does not appear to be the case where you come from. And there certainly is a distinction between "research" universities and plain old liberal-arts colleges, which you would grasp if you ever attended any. But you haven't.

When are you going to be doing some kind of test that can prove me wrong, Polly Parrot? Never, that's when.

When are you going to explain how that last scope shot was made, Polly? You can't even do that. How do you put 12 volts positive to the gate of a mosfet without turning it on, Polly Parrot? Run off and ask your "academics" for an explanation of that scope shot, because it's clear that YOU don't understand it at all. You've been asked many times and you always dodge the issue.

When are you going to stop misrepresenting your OWN work, as you have been doing for some time? How do you explain the differences between your account in your blog posts 117 and 118, and your recent accounts of the same experiment?

Senility, perhaps? Or just your ordinary mendacity that we have grown to accept as normal from you?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And now to these ridiculous conclusions - 1 at a time...

Keep it up, Polly, you are just about down to the bedrock, scraping away with those bloody fingernails.

This sentence has no part in any science forum anywhere - ever.  It is ONLY appropriate to 'spin'.  I do NOT have bloody fingernails.  My hands are reasonably manicured.  And not even 'figuratively' do I have bloody fingernails.  Nor am I 'down to 'bedrock'.  Except in the sense that I am working on a foundation of known physics and well established measurement protocols.  Where you seem to be imposing a variation in the assessment of WATTAGE - and being aided and abetted in these rather misinformed endeavours - by your 'friends' - picowatt - PhiChser - FTC - and others.  You are all of you WRONG.  And if you managed to find 10 more to support this contention - you would STILL all be wrong.  Unless you are SERIOUSLY proposing to revise our standard measurement protocols.  In which case you would need to introduce an entirely new method of measurement analysis.

[TinselKoala]

Polly Parrot Ainslie squawked,

And 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.

And I have preserved it here for posterity... and evidence.


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? Perhaps 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?
You explain it, please.

And IN ADDITION I am reporting this post to our kind host.

[TinselKoala]

And now to these ridiculous conclusions - 1 at a time...

This sentence has no part in any science forum anywhere - ever.  It is ONLY appropriate to 'spin'.  I do NOT have bloody fingernails.  My hands are reasonably manicured.  And not even 'figuratively' do I have bloody fingernails.  Nor am I 'down to 'bedrock'.  Except in the sense that I am working on a foundation of known physics and well established measurement protocols.  Where you seem to be imposing a variation in the assessment of WATTAGE - and being aided and abetted in these rather misinformed endeavours - by your 'friends' - picowatt - PhiChser - FTC - and others.  You are all of you WRONG.  And if you managed to find 10 more to support this contention - you would STILL all be wrong.  Unless you are SERIOUSLY proposing to revise our standard measurement protocols.  In which case you would need to introduce an entirely new method of measurement analysis.

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.