Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

LOL.  I LOVE this comment.

There's one more thing I'd like to see though, for the "DC" mode: I want to see the NERD device operated in straight DC mode (positive gate signal to the Q1 mosfet) using the 72 volt battery supply and the physical build we have been shown and circuit that we are told is correct, for 24 hours.

WHY should the 'DC' mode be run through a MOSFET?  Surely there'd be no need?  This is rich.  Our little TK seriously proposes that we run about 7.2 amps through a transistor for 24 hours? I wonder why exactly?  To test the transistor tolerance?  Or to test whether energy can be transferred from a battery supply source?  What a prize idiot.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

LOL.  I LOVE this comment.
WHY should the 'DC' mode be run through a MOSFET?  Surely there'd be no need?  This is rich.  Our little TK seriously proposes that we run about 7.2 amps through a transistor for 24 hours? I wonder why exactly?  To test the transistor tolerance?  Or to test whether energy can be transferred from a battery supply source?  What a prize idiot.

Rosemary

So now you are at last admitting that it cannot be done, when before you claimed that you could do it easily. NOW you have at last told us why one battery was removed for the second part of the demo and why ALL your high heat trials from that point on have only used 48 volts in your battery pack. You forget that unlike YOU, Ainslie, your scope traces do not lie and I have all of them at my fingertips.

You are the prize idiot, Ainslie, if you do not understand just why I am calling for this test: IT IS CALLING YOUR BLUFF. You know that you cannot make the high heat mode with a 72 volt battery pack because it will blow your lone Q1 mosfet, even if you only use 18 percent ON with a long period. Not only that, but also you KNOW that it would deplete your battery.

You KNOW that the only "magic" in your system must be in the oscillations, but you also KNOW that "the full benefit" -- that is, high heat in the load-- can only be had if you use significant Q1 ON times. Then you are in the embarassing position of explaining how a sufficient NEGATIVE power during the oscillations can cancel the POSITIVE power during the ON times. Since this is a mathematical argument you have no hope of following it, but I assure you, it dooms your story altogether. The analysis has already been done pages ago.

You have nothing to test any more, so why don't you leave this "disgusting" thread and go back to your desert island of a forum, where people can make all kinds of errors and false statements with impunity... as long as they don't question YOU too closely.

Have you answered Ahern's question yet? Have you corrected his calculation of your battery capacity? Have you explained the REMOVAL of the 5.9 megaJoule in 1.6 hour claim from your manuscript? NO? You are a despicable liar.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOME ACTUAL TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when. You are even sending your apparatus off to someone you met on the internet !!

You could even be sending it off to Harvey Gramm,  for all you really know.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello MileHigh

Sorry to hear that you're numb and foggy and out of gas ... these days.  If it's any comfort I don't actually detect any difference in this last post of yours - to your usual standard of posting.  Possibly you've always suffered from this? This excess fog with its mind numbing properties.   It would explain much.  The main current loop is not flowing right through the function generator - btw (by the way).  And I'm also inclined to think that any reality disconnect is actually your own.  It's my take that this is due to the aneathetising effects of that fog.  Probably.  LOL (laugh out loud)

But take heart.  We'll soon have unequivocal proof of a COP infinity measurement. How nice will that be?  Good cause to celebrate.     We all know how anxious you are to get this confirmed. 

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

MH, et al,

There's another one you can add to your list.  The inability to understand that Q2 is turned on when the FG output applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, with the subsequent bias current flowing thru the FG.

She believes that the FG is actually applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which, as anyone can see from a quick look at the schematic, is nonsense.


However, in FIG3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, approx +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  Surely all will agree that this is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on.  However, the CSR trace during that same portion of the cycle does not indicate the current flow that would be anticipated if Q1 was indeed being turned on.

The FIG 7 in the same paper, during the same portion of the cycle, also indicates that sufficient gate drive is being applied to the gate of Q1 to turn Q1 on, yet again, the CSR trace shows no appreciable current flow.

So, again, why is Q1 not turning on?

PW

[MileHigh]

The main current loop is not flowing right through the function generator

Hmmmmmmmzzzzzz.....