Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Picowatt?

Was that excessively long repost of yours intended to take the focus away from this comment of mine?

You most definitely have shown no proof of "COP=infinity", you have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", which, during the measurement thereof, did not account for lead inductance in the connect and interconnect leads to the battery.  Your continued bastardization of the term "COP" is improper, incorrect, and very misleading.  Shame on you.

Golly.  What a pompous, fatuous, idiotic pretentious, opinionated, self-serving halfwit  you are picowatt - with respect... (LOL - maybe not so much.) It's your own rather limited training that's at question.  Not our claim.  Perhaps my previous post will help you out here.  Golly.  Let me borrow a much preferred phrase of yours ...'Shame on you'    This new complaint of yours is nearly as idiotic as your pretense that a negative voltage at the Gate of Q2 will turn it on.  Extraordinary.  Surely you know that this claim of yours will fold at our first demonstration?  It's not even hard to disprove.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You don't really believe that, do you?

In the first place she would never send her baby off to a lab that would actually do any required tests that might prove her WRONG, like comprehensive battery drawdown tests or accurate calorimetry. She has requested that they send it back to her in a WEEK !! It takes a week just to stabilize and calibrate an accurate volume calorimeter, much less test and report on a world-changing overunity zipon-containing device.

In the second place, if she has to include the magic 200 dollar IsoTech (or INSTEK) function generator along with the device.... did she also include the magic batteries? The ones that never have been recharged, except for the two that ... caught fire? I've asked this before but of course there has been no answer. And as picowatt states, the "instructions" in the letter are laughable. "Just hook it up and turn it on, crank the FG to its extreme settings, and begin measurement", essentially. But be sure to mount the device on the pegboard properly.
Perhaps there are more specific instructions included in the box.

In the third place... she will control the information, there won't be any independent report made available from people you can ask without her intervention. Just exactly like all the other supposed vettings from the various alphabet agencies she cites-- no original reports are available for inspection. The recent experience in the locked thread where she is arguing with powercat about what he himself said, or the way she continually misrepresents things other people say and do.... should give you pause. Any "report" that we will get will be filtered through Ainslie and will be positive, "confirming" her claims, and yet... the batteries will discharge and a lot of power will wind up dissipating in the mosfets themselves, so the only way any touted 100 percent efficiency claims can be true is if the entire device's total emission is counted as the "output".

And in the ..... place, .....

And in the nth place, there is no laboratory anyway. She's sent her thing off, if at all, to a couple of sycophants who probably don't know an offset from a tuffet and think that Ainslie's measurement technique and calculations are accurate and believable. It's a delaying tactic, with plenty of opportunity for the thing to get lost or damaged. For sure, it won't be tested and returned to her by July 7th.

LOL.  I can't WAIT for this to be out in the open.  The ONE thing I KNOW is that there will be a precise replication of all our claims.  We've even sent our function generator to ENSURE this.  It all puts me into such a delicious frame of mind that I simply CAN'T get riled at this sort of post.  Poor little TK.  WHAT will you do when serious scientists finally get hold of this information? Will you write to them?  Anxiously?  And then tell them what to think about that 'negative wattage'?.  You'll need to disclose your accreditation.  Or perhaps your GER...?  That'll be more than enough.  Then you can systematically advise them about the miracles of your tinselkoil number thingy and your beautifully expressive posts in this thread.  They'd LOVE to know more about you.  I'm sure.  Such a DELIGHTFUL turn of phrase.  And such IMPECCABLE tests you've shown.  Especially that boomp boomp number.  Remarkably exempt from any evidence of PROFESSIONALISM - anywhere at all.  Just a romp in your compulsive need to express yourself rather more fully than is merited.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

An  N channel MOSFET is turned on whenever its gate is made more positive RELATIVE to its gate.  If the gate is held at or  near ground, as it is in YOUR circuit, the source must be made negative to turn on the MOSFET.

Either action, applying a positive voltage to the gate relative to the source OR applying a negative voltage to the source relative to the gate will turn on an N channel MOSFET.  The gate only need be made more positive WITH RESPECT TO the source.  The source can be at ground and a positive voltage applied to the gate, OR, the gate can be held at ground and a negative voltage applied to the source.  Both actions will turn on the MOSFET.

ANYONE that has the slightest understanding of the operation of a MOSFET KNOWS this.  It is an undeniable FACT.

In your circuit, the gate of Q2 is ALWAYS held at a low voltage close to zero volts.  BECAUSE the gate of Q2 is CONNECTED directly to the non-battery end of the CSR.  SO, the gate of Q2 can NEVER be any other voltage than the voltage observed at the CSR.

In your circuit, to bias on Q2, the FG must apply a NEGATIVE voltage to the source of Q2, and when it does, bias current flows thru Q2 and the FG to the battery neg. (and to be clear, a "negative voltage" means a voltage less than the your battery ground)

This is so obvious to anyone that can read a schematic that any argument from you to the contrary is simply a source of amusement. 

But then, possibly the inability to read your own schematic needs to be added to the list.

[MileHigh]

More Bizarro World in the Bizarro Universe:

Rosemary heaping praise on complete beginners and calling them experts (Remember all the praise you had for Aaron when he made his pathetic attempts to replicate your first circuit and clearly did not even know how to operate an oscilloscope properly? (After 10-years worth of playing with one.))....

And at the same time Rosemary bashing and stating that Picowatt doesn't know what he is talking about when he is clearly and expert with many decades of experience in electronics....

You are so morally bankrupt Rosemary that even farthings run away from you.

The mind boggles.

P.S.:  It was fun watching the steam rise from the top of Aaron's head.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

An  N channel MOSFET is turned on whenever its gate is made more positive RELATIVE to its gate.  If the gate is held at or  near ground, as it is in YOUR circuit, the source must be made negative to turn on the MOSFET.

The appropriate expletive relates to equestrian waste products.  I'll spare you.  You're talking absolute NONSENSE.  I'll SHOW YOU.  Our MOSFETS WILL NOT TURN ON WITH A NEGATIVE SIGNAL APPLIED TO THE GATE.  NOT EVER.  IN ANY WAY AT ALL.  NO HOW.  NOT EVER.  Can I be plainer?

And the balance of your comments are also equally and entirely INCORRECT.

Anyway.  That's it for the night Picowatt.  Ramble on to your heart's content.  You're clearly a rather foolish man that you make claims which will be easily disproved.  But meanwhile - if it satisfies your ego - feel free.  Just know that we've scheduled a whole wack of tests - PRECISELY to discredit these ABSURD statements of yours.  MUCH required - for a variety of reasons.

Rosie Pose.