Testing the TK Tar Baby

[poynt99]

Hey PW,

Look what I found while browsing some old posts:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg11160#msg11160

[poynt99]

TK,

Regarding the "miswiring discovery":

I was looking over the old posts at OUR and saw that I was being asked by Rosemary to comment on her demo results. I was not 100% confident in commenting because things weren't adding up. Humbugger and I were doing simulations at the time in an effort to duplicate their wave forms, but they weren't coming out quite right. There was also the issue of no current shown on the CSR when the MOSFET should have been ON. I suspected the probes may not have been placed in the correct locations.

I wanted to gain some insight into these questions so I took a snapshot of the video where the underside of the peg board was shown, and I spent some time and carefully traced out the entire circuit referencing both the top and bottom views. That's when I discovered the "oooooops" in the MOSFET hookup. It also became evident at that time, that the CSR was in the wrong location.

After I made the appropriate "adjustment" in the simulation, the wave forms replicated almost perfectly. At that point, the rest became relatively easy.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Regarding the "miswiring discovery":

I was looking over the old posts at OUR and saw that I was being asked by Rosemary to comment on her demo results. I was not 100% confident in commenting because things weren't adding up. Humbugger and I were doing simulations at the time in an effort to duplicate their wave forms, but they weren't coming out quite right. There was also the issue of no current shown on the CSR when the MOSFET should have been ON. I suspected the probes may not have been placed in the correct locations.

I wanted to gain some insight into these questions so I took a snapshot of the video where the underside of the peg board was shown, and I spent some time and carefully traced out the entire circuit referencing both the top and bottom views. That's when I discovered the "oooooops" in the MOSFET hookup. It also became evident at that time, that the CSR was in the wrong location.

After I made the appropriate "adjustment" in the simulation, the wave forms replicated almost perfectly. At that point, the rest became relatively easy.

Thanks, that is pretty much what I recalled. I appreciate you explaining it again, though.

So, when you made your "this is embarassing" (you meant for the NERDs of course) post on April 19 2011, and Ainslie replied as she did, as reproduced in the image I posted of cheesburger's post where he quoted it ... what did you think? Almost a month of discussion-- over 450 comment posts -- since the March 22 uploading of the video demo to YouTube by user "dooziedont"--- Rosemary Ainslie. All about a circuit that was not used, apparently ever, for any of the data or demonstrations or the "experiments" in the manuscripts.

In the reply she says "we made full disclosure". What does she mean by that? Is there a posting somewhere of the correct version used, before your April 19 post?

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094

I have some schematics files from Fuzzy that have "March 12" in the filename that show the single mosfet "before" March 12 and the "correct" Q1-Q2 version "after" March 12. The date of the demo was March 12 2011, and the video was posted on March 22. But was that "correct" schematic available anywhere before April 19th? Or any other "full disclosure" of the true circuit demonstrated?

[picowatt]

Hey PW,

Look what I found while browsing some old posts:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg11160#msg11160

.99.

I have seen that capture before, I believe TK posted it not too long ago.  As I said when I first saw it, the FG trace looks cap coupled.  Possibly Rgen in the FG was cooked or there was a bad clip lead or connection.  Who knows?  (Do we even know what the schematic truly was at that time?)  But I see several others "poynted" this out way back then as well.  Q1 must be a magical MOSFET that only functions properly in some captures, and not so much in others.

It is amazing to read on from that post a bit.  It sounds like "current events".  At least the inability or unwillingless to learn appears to be something "perpetual".

I cannot fathom how anyone with even the slightest understanding of electronics can look at your very clear depiction of the FG output stage connected to the NERD circuit and continue to claim/believe that there is no path for current to flow from the Q2 source terminal to the batt negative thru the FG, or not see how a negative voltage applied to the source of Q2 by the FG turns Q2 on.

If she could ever get a grip on how Q2 is biased on and how its DC current is limited by Rgen and Vgs(on), possibly then she could move on to the major AC current path, which she also denies exists (AC current does flow thru the FG as well, but is also limited by Rgen)

If you drew in a 10,000pF capacitor across the FG terminals in your drawing, to depict how all the Ciss of the MOSFETs are effectively connected, that would better show the major AC current path that can flow around the FG via all the Ciss capacitance (note that all five of the MOSFET's Ciss, are effectively in parallel across the FG terminals in the NERD circuit and the total capacitance is likely closer to 12.5nF (5X2.5nF) ).   

I have doubts as to whether it will be possible for her to ever grasp, or allow herself to grasp, the DC conditions when Q2 is biased on, let alone additional feedback mechanisms involved in the AC analysis of the circuit.

But hey, miracles do happen...

PW

[TinselKoala]

Scoposcopy: Using AC coupling to display a small varying signal "riding on top" of a much larger constant DC level.

http://youtu.be/ykX4nZglnGE