Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

You are not qualified to criticise, Ms. Ainslie. You may ask questions about that which you do not understand.

I have asked YOU if you see anything in the videos, How Mosfets Work, 2,3,and 4, that you disagree with, do not expect, do not understand or think is impossible. You have not deigned to answer.

You once again make accusations, claims and insults without the slightest shred of support or proof. If you think that I err in any manner, you are free to provide examples, demonstrations, and outside references to support your points. But you NEVER do, you never have, and you never will. And the reason is that YOU CANNOT.

Likewise this fantasy series of "tests" that you claim to be about to perform. Go ahead and perform them--- if you can. IF you are using the circuit you claim... you know, the one you sought to cover up and hide last March and April..... then you will fall flat on your face.

Meanwhile, you choose to remain ignorant, you choose to misunderstand and misrepresent what .99 is trying to show you, and from this latest little bit of kitchen slop from you, you fully intend to continue in this course. No one can educate you at all.

Meanwhile we see these: Your own admission of your intent to deceive about your schematic. Your own ridiculous statement that you NEVER examined the applied signal voltage. Your own continued garbling of whatever anyone tries to tell you. Your absurd LIE that you are "open sourced"... when nobody has ever seen your data and you have admitted covering up several different schematics and hiding and selecting data.

How do you manage to look yourself in the mirror, through such incredible hypocrisy?

[TinselKoala]

And... after all... the proof is in the pudding. Using my conception of QED and my understanding of charge, voltage, current and so on, I am able to build things the likes of which Ainslie cannot imagine. They are so far out of her conception that she actually believes that many of the things I demonstrate in my videos must be faked. How can I possibly turn a mosfet on by simply touching the gate pin with my finger? How can I possibly transmit tens of Watts of real power across space with no wires? How can I amplify voltage -- and peak power --- to start with a 48 volt battery pack and produce 20000 volts, corona, and peak powers in the kilowatt range, on a small tabletop device?
If I err so badly.... why do these things all work for me, and why do they seem impossible to Ainslie?

"The water wasn't actually boiling.... there were small bubbles."

I laugh in your face, Ainslie.

[picowatt]

And for those of you who are following TK's absurd rendition of the 'classical approach' - may I caution you.  This is NOT even a reasonable rendition of QED concepts.  It appears to be the eccentric machinations of TK's own delusions.  Further - this nonsense which is an apology of an explanation - at best - is intended rather laughable as it is - to defend the fact that unity cannot be breached.

He ERRS.  HOPELESSLY.

If you wish to be informed as to the actual confusions related to the standard model - here's a link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593

Regards,
Rosemary
edited spelling

What's rather "laughable", as you say, is you pretending to know anything about electronics or even basic electricity as it is currently understood.  Your link to what amounts to a short story of fiction, barely qualifying as science fiction, hardly qualifies as a "model" of anything.  From what you wrote, you have absolutely no understanding of the current models with all their mathematical precision and which fully explains all that you feel is unexplained.  Surely you should know what the current understanding is prior to developing new theories.  And, as they say, the language of physics is math, which seems absent at best in your theories.

As you attempt to grasp what .99 is trying to teach you, your extremely limited knowledge regarding basic electricity and the art of electronics has become more focused for all to see.

Even now, you still cannot grasp how Q2 is turned on, what bias current is, what linear operation is, what negative feedback is, why there is a voltage drop across the FG's 50R, or even what a solid black line on a schematic means.  And now, without a full grasp of these basic concepts related to the very simple DC conditions regarding Q2, you feel you are ready to take on the much more complex AC conditions, wherein an understanding of positive feedback, and inductive and capacitive phase shift and reactance are required on top of that required for the DC condition.

You also seek to prove whether Q2 is passing bias current in an upcoming test, yet if you fully understood the captures you have already provided, you would already see that bias current is indeed flowing thru Q2.  It is obvious to anyone who can read a 'scope and who understands MOSFET's and function generators.  Again, the proof that Q2 is biased on at approximately 160ma (plus/minus 50ma) is right there on your 'scope captures.  And if you do go looking for Q2 bias current at the CSR, what voltage would you expect to see if 160ma is flowing?

In light of all this, I find it "laughable", as you say, that you think yourself qualified to comment on any aspect of your circuit's operation.  Yet, you call those who are qualified to do so a "joke".

And then there is this quote from over there:


"When this process is completed I intend engaging all those internet personalities who have taken the trouble to slander and malign my good name - and to misrepresent this hard work - and I will require a retraction of their claims and a public apology.  Failing which I will take legal action against them.  That is my promise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary "


I am assuming this is a two way street.  When you finally realize that Q1 is not functioning or not connected properly in your FIG3 and FIG7, and when you finally realize that Q2 is never "disconnected from the battery" but is in reality biased into linear operation during the oscillation, and when you finally realize that there is indeed a low impedance path for AC current during oscillation, and when you finally realize that a "wire is not always just a wire" due to its inductance, I will also be expecting retractions and public apologies from you.  But I fear it will be some time before your learning curve allows you to understand these things, so I for one, will not be holding my breath.

If you disagree with any claim I have made regarding inaccuracies and errors in your papers, you need only show my comments to a qualified EE who will surely agree with my assertions.  Even your "supposed lab" should be knowledgeable enough to back up the assertions made regarding your circuit's operation and the issues regarding Q1 not turning on in the discussed captures.  If you like, I will gather all my pertinent comments into one post if that would assist you in obtaining a consult regarding this.  But, you won't, apparently you fear the truth.  You won't even verify the 'scope reading regarding Q1 with LeCroy, and again, it must be out of fear of the truth.

As far as any future testing you may perform, based on your demonstrated limitations, I do not believe anyone will have much confidence in any results YOU obtain.  I suggest you find an EE or someone who actually understands electronics and test equipment to perform future tests and review your commentary and analysis before producing another error ridden document.

And I must ask, based on your commentary in the link you provide, do you actually believe that in the current understanding regarding electricity and electronics we actually create, destroy, or somehow "use up" electrons?  No wonder you feel the current views need to be rewritten, you apparently have never learned what the current views actually are...
 

[TinselKoala]

 In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.
"I do not need a lantern," he said. "Darkness or light is all the same to me."
"I know you do not need a lantern to find your way," his friend replied, "but if you don't have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it."
The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him.
"Look out where you are going!" he exclaimed to the stranger. "Can't you see this lantern?"
"Your candle has burned out, brother," replied the stranger.

[The Boss]

 
A link to a US Army training instructional, helping to better understand TK's latest build:   http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/24-18/fm24-18_4.htm