Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

And MileHigh - while I realise that you DEPEND on misdirection in your carefully edited references, may I remind both you and any readers here about my actual post - IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THAT is the WHOLE of the appropriate reference.  And the scheduled points 1 through 4 is the REQUIRED PROOF that TK's conclusions are erroneous - whether or not this is deliberate.

This in fact is yet another LIE from you.  Your scheduled points 1 through 4 are your expressed opinion.  Your expressed opinion does not constitute "proof" that the following statement is true:

TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis

So where are you again?  You are back in the gutter.  You do not have a logical argument at all.

Here is the essence of your argument:  "I disagree with TK, therefore he has a monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis."

They would laugh at you for that statement if you tried to get onto the Grade Six debating team.

Your argument is not true, and in fact it's truly pathetic and it's a farce.  You make a fool of yourself and we all know that your technical knowledge is almost non-existent.  Therefore we all know that you are not even qualified to pass judgement on TK's abilities with respect to power analysis.  Everybody reading this that has followed the thread knows this to be a fact Rosemary.

And the actual truth, the REAL TRUTH, Rosemary, is that TK does a pretty damn decent job overall, and pretty damn decent job at power analysis.  Anybody reading the thread knows this to be true.

So what in God's name are you saying?  Why are you making a fool of yourself by denigrating other people and their ideas when what you are saying is not true and 95% of the time you are not even qualified to say if their ideas have merit or not?

Stop lying and start acting like a decent human being.  Your disgusting vulgar low-brow ghetto displays that aren't even true have to stop.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@MH: She is trying desperately to get herself banned. She knows that threatening us or Stefan with legal action is what is most likely to do it. That way she weasels out of doing the definitive Dim Bulb test... that she has no intention of doing anyway.

But she is full of hot air. She's got nothing, no case, nothing to complain about. All I have to do is publish my whole database, and anyone can see for themselves what a liar and an insulting mendacious ignorant fool she really truly actually is, IN HER OWN WORDS, yet, and any lawyers reading, like eatenbyagrue, will suddenly find something else to do. You can't get blood out of a turnip--- or a pickle--- anyway.

If she  manages to get banned, she will do just what she's always done: find a new forum to inundate with her bloviating and her silly claims. That's why we don't want to ban her from this site...again.... and add to her ever-growing list of places she's been kicked out of.

[MileHigh]

TK:

The point has been made.  I have seen her do it to you, to me, to Poynt, to PW, and many many others, and it's all untrue - lies - and it's just too much and it has to stop.

It's a pathetic display of the dark side of human behaviour - and she now knows what the image in the mirror truly looks like and it's not pretty.

Whenever she does it again I will remind her of this discussion with this simple phrase, "Gutter Efforts at Misdirection."  Feel free to use it yourself.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - the following is to refute MileHigh's calumny...

This in fact is yet another LIE from you.  Your scheduled points 1 through 4 are your expressed opinion.  Your expressed opinion does not constitute "proof" that the following statement is true:

Not actually.  Here's the statement
1
It was considered advisable to test the settings to the limit of the transistor's voltage tolerance - required to explore whether the circuit could operate in booster converter mode.  That included #235 and then the same settings but at a higher applied frequency captured in screenshot numbers #236 #237 #238.  Further tests related to this operational mode continued.  Way past this test number.  We did not get close to the voltage tolerances on this test as the IRFPG50 has a voltage tolerance at upwards of 1000 volts.  We did NOT test its amperage tolerance as the MOSFETs functionality DID NOT DEGRADE.
This is stipulated in the test series related to these scopeshot and this research referenced in Paper 1 of the 2-part paper.

2
The anomaly related to tests 354 and 355 - that related to the 'water to boil' test - required NO extreme transients - and a small but critical off set adjustment.  As in the previous booster converter tests - the benefits here were also manifestly greater at a higher frequency.
This is stipulated in the test series related to these scopeshots and this research referenced in Paper 1 of the 2 part paper.

3
The rampant confusions being spun by TK - Sean - FTC - in these latest 'post contributions' relate to the amount of energy delivered against the amount of energy dissipated.  It is somewhat  absurd to doubt the voltage measurements determined by the LeCroy.  It is well able to compute these waveforms which are within its bandwidth capacity.  No amount of 'eyeballing' is likely to exceed the accuracy that is guaranteed by that instrument - within, obviously, it's known margins of error.  At these frequencies that error margin is that negligible as to be discounted in its entirety.  The amount of energy dissipated FAR exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply.  Integrated power analysis is in line with the negative wattage which is indicated by the product of the voltages shown in the math trace.  The signature heat values recorded exceed the wattage measured to have been delivered by that supply source the more so as all such detailed analysis of the wattage delivered results in a negative wattage.
This is easily demonstrated by reference to the LeCroy specs and by reference to the results detailed in both the first and second part of that 2-part paper.

4
This latest rather reckless attempt at misrepresentation of our work by TK, Sean and FTC is again an example of their propensity to indulge in slander which most certainly is actionable.  We who have worked on this project for many years now - will deal with this aspect of their multiple acts of legal abuse - as required.
This is our official protest to the statements referenced in points 1 through to 3.  And therefore this is NOT our expressed opinion but provable FACTS.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued / ...

Therefore.  When MileHigh states, as he does here...

So where are you again?  You are back in the gutter.  You do not have a logical argument at all.

Not only are my statements accurate, the comments correct, but they are quintessentially logical.  And there is no relevance at all to any 'GUTTER' reference unless it's maliciously intended to IMPLY and ALLEGE some act of 'fraud' or 'misrepresentation' of the facts.  Since the scheduled list of claims can be proved, then any such reference by MileHigh is SLANDEROUS. 

Here is the essence of your argument:  "I disagree with TK, therefore he has a monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis."

That is NOT the essence of my argument.  My argument is detailed in points 1 - 3 and concluded and 4.  MileHigh is here Miles off the point.

They would laugh at you for that statement if you tried to get onto the Grade Six debating team.

This may well be true.  But since we're NOT in a Grade Six debating team - and since we ARE here defending our work against malicious and overt attempts at damaging that work - then the reaction of a Grade Six debating team is largely irrelevant.  Quite apart from which the reaction of a Grade Six debating team is entirely irrelevant and likely to be somewhat inappropriate - at best.

Your argument is not true, and in fact it's truly pathetic and it's a farce. 

So MileHigh keeps alleging.  But as we all know - denial has never constituted an argument.

You make a fool of yourself and we all know that your technical knowledge is almost non-existent.

So he keeps saying.  And every reference is still slanderous.  I can PROVE that he doesn't know how to do power analysis.  I can prove that I most certainly can and that I do it to an entirely acceptable level of competence.  Therefore AGAIN AND YET AGAIN...MileHigh's comments related to this are slanderous.