Testing the TK Tar Baby

Rosemary Ainslie · June 24, 2012, 03:00:01 AM

Guys,

Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AM
Do you really believe that you can win a technical argument by constant denigration of the person with the opposing (and dare I say, correct) point of view?

I believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself. This is most likely apparent to all.

You have presented no technically sound explanations for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7, and choose to bury any discussion regarding that topic with just threats and insults. How on Earth do you believe that supports your case?

Yet again picowatt ignores the need to show us his data and experimental evidence and simply repeats the same carp against a point that has been ROUNDLY DEALT with on my own locked thread. It seems that they adhere to some obscure belief that repetition is enough to brainwash us all - and that we're as stupid as they hope we are.

The fact is that they've nothing left to go on about. So they've elected to point to the rather FORLORN excuse that the results are due to FAULTY components. Then they 'deliberate' with ponderous absurdity - about this possibility. Little TK talks about blown FETs and Picowatt pretends that he's looking at his own non-existent apparatus. And so the farce continues.

It would be very easy for picowatt to disprove this. Just take a film of his apparatus and tell us all about it. He won't. He can't. He's got nothing there. Just an empty table in front of his computer.

Regards again,
Rosemary

picowatt · June 24, 2012, 03:02:38 AM

Guess you did not follow the whole Mylow affair. What Mags said is old news and very factual. You should read up on the whole affair, Mylow caused many replicators to waste a bunch of time and money over a complete fraud.

Guess he should have sent the apparatus off to a laboratory for testing and had it get seized or lost in the mail. Instead he went all the way with the fraud and used the fishing line, that some people good with video analysis/enhancement were able to detect. And as mags said, he tried to pull the MIB card as well.

Rosemary Ainslie · June 24, 2012, 03:10:23 AM

This is CHOICE. Here, guys, we have a thread GROANING under the weight of denigration and - NOTA BENE...

Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AM
Do you really believe that you can win a technical argument by constant denigration of the person with the opposing (and dare I say, correct) point of view?

How's that for IRONY?

Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AMI believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself. This is most likely apparent to all.

And then THIS? 'I believe that as you continue such behaviour, you only denigrate yourself?" LOL. He's FINALLY argued my point.

And as for this....

Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 02:52:33 AMYou have presented no technically sound explanations for Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7, and choose to bury any discussion regarding that topic with just threats and insults. How on Earth do you believe that supports your case?

You can all rest easy. I have explained this. picowatt - the ponderous - is WELL aware of the facts. But he's run out of argument and has nothing else to point to.

As I said. This thread is disgusting.

Regards
Rosemary

picowatt · June 24, 2012, 03:11:42 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 03:00:01 AM
Guys,
Yet again picowatt ignores the need to show us his data and experimental evidence and simply repeats the same carp against a point that has been ROUNDLY DEALT with on my own locked thread. It seems that they adhere to some obscure belief that repetition is enough to brainwash us all - and that we're as stupid as they hope we are.

The fact is that they've nothing left to go on about. So they've elected to point to the rather FORLORN excuse that the results are due to FAULTY components. Then the 'deliberate' with ponderous absurdity - about this possibility. Little TK talks about blown FETs and Picowatt pretends that he's looking at his own non-existent apparatus. And so the farce continues.

It would be very easy for picowatt to disprove this. Just take a film of his apparatus and tell us all about it. He won't. He can't. He's got nothing there. Just an empty table in front of his computer.

Regards again,
Rosemary

And once again you demonstrate that you know nothing of what you speak. TK and I were not even discussing your circuit. Maybe try reading a bit slower.

And again, your only argument to date regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 has been that the 'scope is being read incorrectly. Did you bother to show .99's annotated capture to your 'scope calibration guy as you said you were going to do? Of course you did not. If you did, you would also now realize that there is indeed +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG 3 which should turn Q1 on. The CSR trace clearly demonstrates that Q1 is not turning on.

So, again, why is Q1 not turning on when it clearly should be?

The question is constantly repeated because it is never answered and no corrections made.

You are starting to look like Mylow...

Rosemary Ainslie · June 24, 2012, 03:19:57 AM

Guys, I LOVE this one.

Quote from: picowatt on June 24, 2012, 03:11:42 AM
And again, your only argument to date regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 has been that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.

IT IS NOT BEING READ INCORRECTLY. CAN'T BE DONE. NOT POSSIBLE. The setting of the coupling is DC. It should be AC. Either picowatt doesn't understand the implications or he hopes no-one else does. Strange. It was IMMEDIATELY understood by our EXPERTS. God forbid we discover he hasn't a clue about those different couplings and how the zero reference adjusts accordingly. Then we'd be inclined to doubt the very expertise he tries so hard to pretend.

Regards as ever,
Rosemary[/quote]