Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Yes.... and I did it without even needing THOSE FOUR HUGE HEATSINKS that you use, too.

Let's see....what's the score now? You've blown at least 4 mosfets, one function generator and an oscilloscope. How many have I blown?

And talk about "well done"...


YOU managed WEL-DED, didn't you.

[TinselKoala]

My dear little TK,

If you got the MOSFET Q1 OR the MOSFETs Q2 to heat up to 190 degrees centigrade - then you have FAR exceeded our claims.  Our own MOSFETs either Q1 or Q2 do NOT come near your achievements here.  VERY WELL DONE INDEED

Rosie Pose
added

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you are in fact using the schematic from the second paper, not the first one nor the one used in the demo.

Somebody wisened you up and told you that this endless blowing of mosfets has got to stop, so you finally did what you intended to do in the first place by parallelling the mosfets: take the "heat" off of the Q1. But you blew it because you assigned the Q1 role to a single mosfet anyway. And after the video, whoever is the brains of your operation straightened you out, wired the circuit like in Paper 2, which is NOT a misprint at all, and you never reported the change.... Or DID you?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

 

Rosemary,
   Thank you for your compliments on the photo, however, as a BFA I would say the 'artistry' of the photo is completely lacking. The only really remarkable part about it was that it could be taken at all, given the device used to take it.
polln8r

No pollinater - not actually.  That photo is AMAZING.  Those lines.  They're like someone was underscoring and then just ran out of time and did a scribbled heavy line at the base.  The minaret - pointing at the suggestion of the crescent.  And all those Asian mystical portents associated with the crescent - in the first instance.  Just so UNDERSTATED - and pointing off center -  a little off the point.  Like it's SO portentous it's best not stare at it.   Sort of 'rude'. That dark and darkening sky with everything in chiaroscuro.  Like a silk wash.  It's very good.  It's really very, very good.  And I assure you my friends agree with me.  I'm no art critic but even I can see that it's excellent.   I'm sure that was no accident. And I think you're being unnecessarily modest.  You must have positioned that camera in the first instance.  And if it WAS an accident - then you clearly make very good ones.  I've actually printed out a copy.  But it's not the right paper.  I need to get it done again.  If you want me to send one to you then PM me with your address. 

But having said all that - I'm not blowing up your skirts here pollinater.  I think your support of TK's work is still inappropriate.  And I'm happy to  quarrel with you and everyone else regarding this for as long as it takes.

Regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

By the way... it seems that Ainslie thinks her vile hate-crime cartoon of two people she has never seen is somehow "protected speech" because it is "satire".

Well, sure, then it should be clear that when I call Polly Parrot a lying, ignorant, arrogant scrawny wench of a madwoman, or a mendacious overweening hypocrite, or a total drag on the community.... I am expressing my own rather considered opinion in a literary and satirical manner. Ho ho ho.

And when I present evidence that I am correct in all this satirical characterisation.... well, that's just entertainment.

(Some of my best friends like to prance around in their underwear sniffing flowers, and we find Ainslie's "satire" deeply offensive.)

Guys - it seems that our little TK is having some difficulty getting his GRE... ... around the definition of satire.  Seemingly it takes more than 72 pickles per square inch to get to grips with this.  Can someone explain to him - perhaps, using simple easy words of one or two syllables max - that its essential feature is that of 'wit'.  Not 'witlessness'. 

Regards as ever,
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

How's this for wit, you witless idiot: Here are some more examples of your laughable "math" and your impaired reasoning and your mendacious reportage. Keep them coming, Ainslie, I've got plenty of room in the AinslieFail data base.



Translation of the posts below: She just waves her hands and makes numbers up to suit her fancy. Leave out the seconds, why not, make even more errors, count the same energy twice, then report the resultant value over and over as if it was the result of some kind of calculation based on measurement, rather than a total lie based on fantasy.


You really should look at these images, Ainslie. You don't know what you are missing.