Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Here, Ainslie, idiot, are some references that you will ignore as usual, but which explain just how abysmally wrong you are about mosfets and how they operate. You couldn't understand them even if you DID read them, but some other people will read them, compare them to your pitiful misunderstanding and misconception, and be amused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_MOSFET
http://www.coe.pku.edu.cn/tpic/20103181246218.pdf

What do  you think the FET part of mosfet means, anyway? My balloon in an air duct analogy is a very good one to describe how a mosfet functions. Your description is a mishmash of error and misconception and betrays both your continuing lack of understanding and your overweening arrogance. PEOPLE DESIGN WONDERFUL ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU CLAIM THEY DO NOT HAVE, circuits like.... computers for example, which have millions of mosfets in them, all working by the mechanism that YOU DENY: charge, field effect, and ELECTRON FLOW.


LOOK at the drawing of how the mosfet is constructed inside. THERE IS A SLAB OF INSULATION between the gate structure and the rest of the mosfet. ONLY THE ELECTRIC FIELD can pass this insulator. It is the FIELD, growing and shrinking past this insulator, that allows the DRAIN-SOURCE channel to open or close. In an N-channel mosfet, a positive Voltage at the gate sucks electrons away and leaves the GATE with a positive charge, and the FIELD from this positive charge extends across the insulator and allows the FLOW OF ELECTRONS between the drain and source structures. In a P-channel mosfet it is a negative voltage that supplies ELECTRONS and their negative charge to the gate structure. The FIELD from this charge, extending across the insulator, enables the flow of ELECTRONS between the drain and source structures.
It is also the growing and shrinking of electric fields, past insulating layers, that allow CAPACITANCES to PASS AC CURRENT.

But you will ignore these simple facts because they conflict with your delusional "thesis" and your flawed conceptions of how transistors, especially mosfets, actually WORK.

Explain if you can how I can turn a mosfet fully on just by TOUCHING THE GATE PIN WITH MY FINGER, as I demonstrate several times in my mosfet videos. Under your silly model... you cannot.

[TinselKoala]

@.99: How's that Fractured Fairy Tale going? From here, it looks like you are starting to lose some ground.

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy everyone,

I see TK brought up a interesting point here on Rosemary's 2002 Quantum COP>17 article concerning the 555 timing switch ......

Can you imagine claiming that you have a publication showing overunity performance, and you push this "paper" and its data and demand replication and all the rest... and you HAVE NO IDEA whether or not there are errors in the BASIC SCHEMATIC given with the paper, even though DOZENS of people have told you that there ARE errors and that it DOES NOT WORK as you claimed it does? After a DECADE?
Can anyone imagine that?

The woman is a willfull ignoramus. How hard is it to get a breadboard and stick seven dollars worth of components into it? EVEN AN EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD COULD DO IT IN AN AFTERNOON, and use LEDs and her EYEBALLS to see whether I am right or I am wrong.

But Ainslie has no idea, included the circuit blah blah blah, and couldn't even use a standard representation of the 555 itself, instead drawing the pin FUNCTIONS instead of their numbers and using some weird organization that is difficult to read and decode. One would almost conclude that she is OBSCURING rather than revealing and facilitating, with ALL of her "publications", since they contain SO MANY SEVERE AND SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS as to completely invalidate them as they stand, WHETHER OR NOT she is even correct about her absurd "thesis".

There is several "QUOTES" from Rosemary ( aka Witsend ) at Energetic Forum .... this is one of the better ones as you read on ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html      07-13-2009, 07:52 AM

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

As you all can see Rosemary's known about the errors for almost three (3) years now and still hasn't withdrawn or corrected the 2002 Quantum COP>17article paper information but she offers it always as a claim to her THESIS. 


FTC

[TinselKoala]

You know, if the 555 circuit simply didn't work, or it produced some random duty cycle, that would be one thing and Ainslie's rationalizaton might be considered plausible (if you didn't know her history of lying). But.... IT DOES WORK, and it produces EXACTLY the inverted duty cycle. It doesn't have to be tweaked or modified; if it's built and hooked up exactly as in the Quantum article it produces the behaviour cited by Ainslie as her heat profile.

The problem is that it is exactly inverted, and the mosfet is ON, conducting, 96 percent, or 96.3 percent of the time, or whatever, in order to do it.

I doubt if there is an electrical engineer in the world who can just look at a 555 timer circuit and tell you just from inspection what exactly it will do. But the duty cycle and period values and ranges can be precisely calculated from the component values, and vice versa. This means that there is NO WAY that a random error could have just coincidentally made the exact inverted duty cycle and there is NO WAY that some professor would inspect the diagram, say that it wouldn't work and not point out WHY. The claims in the Quantum article are HEAVILY DEPENDENT on that duty cycle and if ANY reviewer or ANY editor knew that the 555 circuit as presented was problematic THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD WHY AND HOW.

In other words, Ainslie's story is implausible. The correct story is that the timer was deliberately designed using the component values specified to produce a 96-4 duty cycle. Because of the Ainslie misconceptions of mosfets, duty cycles, oscilloscopes and the rest, she ACCEPTED AND USED the 555 timer as given in the schematic and NEVER REALIZED until I discovered it by actually BUILDING instead of talking and speculating.

And it's astounding that she offered JOIT money. She, and HE, fought me for WEEKS over this issue until he finally shut up and actually BUILT and understood the circuit and proved even to her that I was right. And she offers HIM money for it. What a lying hypocrite she is.

Astounding.

The tales of replication using a function generator are also laughable. NOBODY, using a short duty cycle as Ainslie presented, 555 or FG or even a fast risetime pulse generator, was ever able to get anything like her reported heat results, much less the battery charging that she ASSUMED was happening due to her abysmally bad "power calculations". (I used the original 555 circuit, a F34 Sweep Function Generator, a DP-101 fast risetime pulse generator, and a CORRECTLY built 555 timer circuit in my testing of the claims. Only long duty cycles could produce the heating she claimed, no matter how the pulses were generated. I also tested different mosfets and found a type that worked BETTER for heating and BETTER for external spike siphoning.)

It's disgusting and astounding that these Ainslie lies persist even today, and that is one of the reasons that I'm not going to let it rest. As long as she keeps bringing up the uncorrected, WRONG, diagrams and reports from the past that have been soundly refuted over and over... I'll keep reminding people of the hard, expensive work that's gone before, almost ALL started by her True Believers and ALL failing to produce verification for her vaunted claims--- and therefore all became detractors and ALL are now on Ainslie's blacklist. She cannot produce a SINGLE REPORT of confirmation of her claims in the COP >17 fiasco, in spite of her protestations otherwise. Where are the links to the reports? Where are the reports of these EEs who she claims have approved her circuit? They do not exist. Meanwhile plenty of REAL LIVE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS have indeed looked at and reported their findings about these circuits HERE and on other forums, and they all agree... with each other and not with Ainslie.

Ainslie does not apparently realize that the SAME CIRCUIT built in the SAME WAY using the SAME COMPONENTS will perform in the SAME MANNER, no matter who builds and tests it.

[TinselKoala]

My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

So once again she has admitted here that she published an article describing an experiment and including a schematic diagram... that was NOT of the apparatus used.

And after all these years it STILL has not been retracted or corrected. REGARDLESS OF THE DUTY CYCLE ISSUE: A component was in the apparatus but IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT IN THE DIAGRAM, according to Ainslie now ...yet that diagram is STILL BEING OFFERED TODAY as part of the experimental report.

Is this not astounding? This is once again CLEAR and OBVIOUS pseudoscientific misconduct, and anyone who gets involved with Ainslie should realize that the only thing that can be trusted from her is ACTUAL RAW DATA. Only verifiable instrument readings, like scopeshots combined with photos of the apparatus taken concurrently, can be believed from her, and those must be properly interpreted using knowledge of how they were obtained.

(By the way, the Quantum magazine article is the only legitimate actual publication of anything having to do with her circuits, other than the patent APPLICATIONS, that Ainslie has managed. The Rossi "JNP" is neither a Journal nor a publication... it's a blog and a blog post, and isn't even getting any comments.)