Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

TK!

Very clever, sir! (It's the front view of you in the same pose as that back view pic with the light on your head!)
...so, this gets me into the illuminati MIB disinformation agent club, right?
polln8r

Ah hah.... so that's where Ainslie and her minions have found my photograph. Curses..... the illuminati MIBs have strucken agin !

They probably deconvoluted the mirror reflection of my face in that teaspoon sitting in my coffee cup on the counter, decoded it into a software sim and came up with the top secret prosoponophone circuit.

[TinselKoala]

@PW: The trick is to use adequate cooling. Try settling down with a nice tall glass of your favorite beverage.

And burn _something else_ before reading the schematic, silly. Toast, or the beef wellington, or that pile of old newspapers and Ainslie printouts cluttering up the bin.

[MileHigh]

Just for the sake of posterity let's see Rosie confirm and broadcast out to the world that on this day, July 22, 2012,  that she still doesn't have the slightest clue what she is talking about:

Ok.  I see where the problem is.  Let me try this again...
'...what I really want to see is if one applied a positive signal to the negative rail of the battery supply - that this would prevent the flow of current from that supply.'

BUT.  When we apply a positive signal to Q1 with Q2 disconnected - we are then simultaneously applying a negative signal to the negative battery rail via the FG terminal.  We KNOW that this allows the current discharge from the battery supply - in the normal manner.  SO.  What I want to test is this.  What happens when we apply a positive to that negative rail.

And this woman is claiming that she is interacting with people at academic institutions?

[TinselKoala]

I was going to post another Electric Koan... but I now realize that Ainslie is incapable of seeing similarities and differences between schematics and is incapable of interpreting the differences in circuit behaviour that result from differences in schematics.

Not only that but her "full cup" is blocking and preventing her from absorbing the simple poynts that .99 is trying to make. Her model of voltage and current is so incorrect that she can't even ask the right questions, and it's impossible to integrate the right answers into her system... so she gets the information all garbled, rather than realizing that it is her model that is incorrect and that is preventing her from attaining enlightenment about electricity. Much less about active electronic components, that are modeled in her fantasy as simple switches, but in reality have far more complex behaviours that her model can neither describe, predict... nor control.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie's only possible claim for "official publication" of her daft manuscripts is on Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics blog, where the manuscripts are supposed to have been "peer reviewed" before being put on the blog, and where comments are posted concerning it.

Today, July 22, 2012, the official publication on Rossi's blog still contains the lie that 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated in 1.6 hours, and the dangling "battery capacity is...." fragment. Both of these, as we know, have been removed from the version now posted by Ainslie in her honeytrap forum.

Also still present in Rossi's version... the OFFICIAL version.... is the claim that 6 batteries were used to produce the Figure 5 scopeshot... when it is plain from the trace itself that only 4 were used.... and indeed, in the "new edit" posted on the honeytrap, the description has has been changed, without comment, to read that 4 batteries were used. However, as anyone can clearly see.... in the new edit version the BASELINE MARKER for the battery channel has been removed from the image, edited away by that mysterious "compression artefact" that only removes significant probative data from controversial scopeshots AND NOTHING ELSE.

Attached below:
1. Current capture from JNP publication showing the bogus lie of 5.9 megajoules still there, taken today, 22 July 2012.
2. Current capture from JNP publication showing the Figure 5 in that publication (the "6 battery" description is on the same page).
3. Current capture from the new edit on the honeytrap forum showing the present Figure 5, missing the battery baseline marker and stating "4 batteries" instead of the 6 stated in the official publication.