Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

So.... you can see how she "transcribes".

Here is the thread page containing the numbered posts that she has "transcribed" and summarized. We are sure to be treated to a similar set of "summaries" _relating to_ my videos.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1511/

Please read the page, it's a hilarious blast from the past, especially when you compare it post by post to Ainslie's "summary" on her blog.

Personally, I think I'm a lot more handsome than Adolph Hitler... taller too.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

YOU LIE AGAIN like a mangy dog.

LOL.  I want to see that mangy dog that lies. 

I have NEVER said that a mosfet passes current through the gate by any means other than its capacitance. NO VIDEO THAT I HAVE EVER MADE shows this. If you think that there is one, LINK TO IT you idiot.

You most certainly did 'infer' and 'imply' this.  In fact you even ARGUED this.  Specifically.  But I'll get there TK.  In due course.  I"ll certainly show you that video.  In fact I'll reference them all. With an in depth analysis.  LOL.

YOU ARE A LIAR and you are willfully ignorant. That's just one thing that is WRONG WITH YOU.

So you keep saying.  Again and again.  I think you depend on 'the real truth' being made simply by repetition of an 'unreal truth' - which may or may not mean anything at all.  As a rule such statements are considered slanderous and are actionable.  I'm not sure why you take such pride in what the most of us would consider criminal behaviour?  Perhaps because you don't know what constitutes a professional conduct and what does not?  Perhaps because you're proud of your lack of professionalism?  Who knows why?  But I am most certainly NOT lying and I most certainly am NOT willful - nor ignorant. 

Rosie Pose 

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

MOSFETs.... How do THEY work?  Chapter 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfyY9QvRIL0

More impossible magic from TKLabs. A metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor is turned on by.... electric field effect, requiring essentially no current, just a little positive charge supplied by removing electrons.

Impossible magic... or sufficiently advanced technology?

Therefore aliens.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Orcad PSpice, v10.5. Thanks.

I just tried it again, but reduced the 60uF down to 10uf again, and the results are the same; +3.3W and -37.6W.

So it appears only a modest amount of filtering is required to show a significant change in the computed battery power.

Re. a wire not always being a wire? I can show you comments I made in this forum regarding the original COP>17 claim and the work I did on it back then (about 3 or 4 years) where I repeated the very same mantra. 

My dear Poynty Point,
There is only one test as to whether the COP>17 test actually IS COP>17 - and that's against the results of a comparative draw down test.  I'm sure you'll agree.  So.  Whatever analysis has or is applied against such a test is largely irrelevant until the evidence of its performance can be gauged from that test.  Therefore, before you entirely depend on your argument or anyone else's for that matter - I am in the happy position of being able to show you all that it most certainly DOES outperform a comparative drawn down.  And that will be the first object of what will also be a very public demonstration. 

In the same way - before you entirely depend on your simulation results - you'll need to explain how it is that the oscillation has a positive component when the battery is disconnected from the circuit.  If you're arguing that the battery IS connected and IS responsible for that positive half of each of those waveforms in that oscillation - then you'll need to explain it both in relation to the available paths and in relation to the consequent waveform.  Evidence in both is lacking.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

You lie and threaten and insult yet again, Ainslie. POST THE LINK to where I ever said that a mosfet gate passes current except through its capacitance. You cannot because there is not any such case. IN FACT... just a few pages back, before you started this current nonsense, I posted this:

The FG turns on the mosfets by applying a charge to the gate. There is very little current flow associated with this and when the gate is "full"of charge the mosfet simply stays on with no additional gate current except for tiny leakage. This has NOTHING to do with Faraday's Law of Induction, which says that a changing current induces a voltage in another conductor that is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field of the first current. All current flow that you will encounter does obey this law and the induced voltages around your circuit are what is making the feedback. This has nothing to do with steady-state DC currents, it only applies when the current and its magnetic field are changing. If a FG is making a pulse that is below 10 Hz into small inductances... it might as well be making DC pulses. And if it is making two-minute long pulses... then it IS making DC.

As usual, your citation of Faraday's Law or some other unspecified "Laws of Induction" betray your ignorance more than any erudition that may have soaked in through your thick skull over the years.
   

And you might even be able to get your advisors to explain the latest video to you so that you will understand how mosfets work.

AT NO TIME have I ever claimed, asserted, implied what you say. Post a link if you think I did. You cannot.