Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Note well: the scopeshots I posted above show the BLUE trace which is the Function Generator output signal, which is applied to the Gate of Q1 IF THE CLAIMED SCHEMATICS ARE VALID. This transistor is receiving +12 volts according to the oscilloscope trace during the non-oscillating portions of the duty cycle. The supplied battery voltage is over 72 volts. A functioning mosfet should be FULLY ON if it is getting a gate signal of +12 volts, or even six volts and sometimes even as little as 4 volts.... but the scopetrace clearly shows +12 volts gate signal to the Q1 mosfet.

The total circuit resistance IF THE CLAIMED SCHEMATICS ARE VALID is around 14 Ohms when the Q1 mosfet is on and conducting power to the load.  Ohm's Law tells us that the CURRENT flowing in that Q1 mosfet IF IT IS TURNED ON, FUNCTIONAL, and WIRED AS CLAIMED, will be AT LEAST 72/14 = 5.14 Amperes.   And yet the golden trace, which is the voltage drop across the current-viewing "shunt" resistor.... shows ABSOLUTELY NO CURRENT during these times, as anyone with eyes can see.

This mosfet, as anyone can see from the still photos and the video demo, is on a small bit of aluminum U-channel, not a proper heatsink for a TO-247 device at all. Anyone with familiarity with the operation and use of mosfets will be shuddering at these numbers. In the scopeshot above, used as evidence for Ainslie's claims in her manuscripts, the Q1 mosfet is clearly failed open, and the reasons are clear: it was operated beyond its maximum performance parameters. All the more ironically, because if the schematic in the First Version of the Second Manuscript... the version that is STILL POSTED AS AN "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION" on Rossi's JNP vanity blog.... if that version had actually been used the 4 paralleled mosfets acting as Q1 would have been adequate and would not have failed. THE VERY REASON FOR THESE EXTRA MOSFETS IN THE FIRST PLACE is that she was blowing the lone Q1 mosfets with the 72 volt applied voltage and the long on-time duty cycles! But due to her miswiring mistake, and her prevarication and mendacity about the actual schematic used, she is now locked into the lone Q1 configuration. And thus.... the continuing problem with blowing the Q1 mosfet whenever 72 volts... or even 60 volts.... and long on-times are used.
The Video Demonstration even proves this: ONE BATTERY WAS REMOVED, leaving only 48 volts input, for the long-on-time second part of the video demo.... and Ainslie and her sycophants have NEVER explained why.
But I have explained why ... it was because she didn't want to have a failure of her apparatus right there in public.

Below, for comparison, I show one of Ainslie's scopeshots that have this mosfet still functioning and passing current. It even gets less than the  +12 volt gate drive signals in the shots above, it's getting more like a bit over six volts apparently, well sufficient to turn it on .... and the golden Current trace clearly shows a high current flow, as it should. Even at a supply voltage of just over 48 volts.... FOUR batteries.

[TinselKoala]

I believe that this Video Demo, which uses NOT the 72 volts advertised but starts out with only nominally 60 volts (5 batteries), contains the "smoking gun" that shows that Ainslie is a conscious fraud, not just a fool making freshman EE errors. This smoking gun is the REMOVAL OF THE FIFTH BATTERY in the second half of the demo, leaving only a nominal 48 volts supply. Ainslie and her sycophants have never explained OR EVEN ADDRESSED this issue at all. Every time I mention it, it is simply ignored by Ainslie. Why was it done in the first place? It was done to lower the current through the lone Q1 mosfet during the long ON times required for the apparatus to produce significant heating in the load. This shows very clearly two things: first, the "off time" oscillations do not and cannot produce the high heat claimed by Ainslie, so the ON time must be increased for the load to heat substantially. And second.... and more importantly.... the demonstrators-- some of them at least-- KNEW that the use of the full 72 volts, and perhaps even the less-than-full 60 volts, would likely blow the Q1 mosfet from overheating.... and they wanted to conceal that fact.

In short, I believe that the Video Demo, taken along with the other data from Ainslie, demonstrated a CONSCIOUS DELIBERATE FRAUD, an attempt to deceive by omission and outright lies. (The description of the circuit used, showing the paper diagram of the single mosfet, and the narrator's statement of "5 mosfets in parallel" are not errors.... they are deliberate lies in an attempt to cover up the true state of affairs.)

Ainslie was so proud of this video demo that, immediately on posting it, she notified everyone on the OU thread and also her blog readers with ecstatic announcements. Yet... when we started discussing it in the locked thread and in this one .... she claimed, in all caps yet, that she "DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO".... when it is manifestly true that she did.  She made a deliberate attempt to hide and cover up her attempts at deliberate deception and fraud contained in that video. Her tangled webs of lies and deceit are worthy of a Batman movie plot.... and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

.

[TinselKoala]

Proof of ROSEMARY AINSLIE's lies about posting the video:

First, three posts where she announces the downloading and posting of the video ON HER YOUTUBE CHANNEL and presents it as support for her claims.

Next,  two forum posts where she DENIES POSTING IT,  denies having anything to do with posting it or making it public,  or that it has anything to do with her claims.

QED.

Note well this fact: her blog post 96 is titled THE PROOF.  She is here presenting the VIDEO DEMO as proof.... of what? Why, of her claims of course, in clear contradiction to her later claims that the video only "relates" to her claims....whatever that prevarication might mean in straight English.

[Magluvin]

This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. .



Kindest regards
Rosie"

Umm, didnt she just say the other day that she didnt have "chemistry experts"?

Magzy

[TinselKoala]

And... last in this series, but very much not least.... her clear statement that she deliberately engaged in fraud concerning the schematics presented in the video and the verbal description of the circuit.... and even more remarkably, the statement that she wished to continue that fraud even longer !!