Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Groundloop]

Thank you for checking. 

So a mosfet getting 12 volts to the gate should pass a lot of current, several amps at least, easily visible on a CVR trace, as your experiment has shown, right?

And if it gets only 5 volts the current drops considerably, and if it got only 4 volts the current would be even less than 320 mA.

That sounds to me like a mosfet might make a pretty good amplifier if it is operated in this rather linear response mode !

All of my measurements on that scope trace are as accurate as I could get; I blew up the image and used calipers to make the measurements, but because of the fuzz it is difficult to decide where to put the line.  So I tried to put it in the middle of the fuzz. But without knowing the fine details of the fuzz, it's not possible to know the precise voltage level that the mosfet got. Perhaps it was seeing less than 5 full volts. It would be nice to know, from Ainslie, just exactly what that voltage was. Too bad the scope wasn't set to display it, as it easily could have been.

I think that the mosfet was just underdriven for that shot and that the 320 mA figure might be close to the true DC current during those 16 millisecond ON periods. Ainslie's load is also given as 11.11 Ohms.

Have you had any luck reproducing this other shot... the one where +12 volts is definitely applied to the gate -- or somewhere -- for 16 full seconds each period ... but there is NO current flow whatever? This is Figure 3 from the first paper.

TK,

I can reproduce it with a mosfet that has a blown gate and a small leakage of current regardless of what
voltage I put onto the gate. One of the blown mosfets I have give me approx. 0,12 Ampere at 12 volt.

I have to test this on my setup again to be sure.

GL.

[Groundloop]

Groundloop.  I have just seen this post of yours.  May I ask if I have 'offended you'?  Somehow?  The tone of this post of yours is one of EXASPERATION verging on 'rudeness'?  Of course I know my circuit.  But we have published MANY different test results from many different settings.  And why should it be OBVIOUS that you're going to test the MOSFET that switches ON.  It would be just as OBVIOUS to test the MOSFET that is NOT switching on - DESPITE a positive signal at ITS GATE?  I would have thought.  Are you simply pretending that I've badgered you?  to test anything at all?  Do I somehow deserve this - in the light on our email correspondence?  I assumed we were friends.  Are you trying to let everyone know that we're NOT?  Or indeed, was I mistaken in assuming that we WERE friends?  Or is it that for the first time in the 4 years that I have been following your posts - that you have FINALLY changed from the single most reasonable poster I have ever studied - to one on veiled belligerence?   

I cannot understand this 'tone'.  It is ill mannered and undeserved and entirely out of character.  Are you joining the TK bandwagon here?  Is that it?  For whatever reason?

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I think I did explain fairly well in the earlier posts what I was going to test. I also have very little time right now to post
in this forum. Nothing has changed between you and me. And I probably was irritated over to explain that I had to do the
testing at a later time. So I was out of bed at 0500 today after 4 hour of sleep. Did build the test circuit and did make the
drawing and the test prediction this morning. I did not detect any 'rudeness' in my post and I have not entered any bandwagon.
I report what I see happening as good as I can. And I try to be short and to the point because of limited time right now.

GL.

[MileHigh]

Rosie Posie:

I was, after all, the one who needed to point out THEIR rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power.

I have told you several times this is all hot air for nothing.  There are no catastrophic errors and when you say things like this you are making a spectacle of yourself.

IF I didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention.  Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing their abusive level of dialogue with me.

Sorry Rosie but you can't have it both ways.  You are already involved in a dialogue and you can't pretend that you are not going to address this issue because that would be 'endorsing' the dialogue.

You are talking 'impedance' so you need to explain to us exactly what you mean and cite an example with calculations if you can.  If not, we will all be tempted to think that you are bluffing.

MileHigh

[fuzzytomcat]

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg311545/#msg311545     Reply #543 on: February 03, 2012, 10:17:19 PM

Here's that list.
It is my considered opinion ...
.   that anyone with 27 years of experience in electronics cannot seriously compute wattage from a measured voltage WITHOUT the flow of current.
.   that nor can anyone seriously propose that the energy is not WHOLLY conserved but that Power IS.
.   that notwithstanding Poynt's argument to the contrary, a battery supply source is NOT capable of delivering a negative current flow.
.   that convention has adequately described polarities related to wattage analysis which convention impeccably represents all power measurements.
.   that to apply his protocols one would first need to upend standard protocols.
.   that it is catastrophically incorrect to claim voltage across a load resistor is consistent with the direction of the flow of current from a supply source.
.   that Poynty relies on ASSUMPTION that our oscilloscope probes are reading the incorrect battery voltage.
.   which flies in the face of the evidence where we apply those probes directly to the battery terminals
.   that Poynty relies on eccentric and illogical deductions related to all these points to refute our claim
.   that he also relies on eccentric and illogical deductions to refute his own simulated evidence
.   that he relies on ill defined terminologies and acronyms to deliberately confuse our members with the impression of some higher knowledge
.   notwithstanding the fact that he is aware of the need of all science to be clear - as is Professor Jones
.   that there are those members who are not aware of the mathematical corruptions that he continually applies
.   that they are both committed to the denial of all over unity claims - in principle and regardless of the evidence
.   that the offer of a prize is a lure to the unsuspecting claimants that there is any serious intention of doing a sincere evaluation
.   that they apply techniques of scorn - gossip - and traducement and slander -  to the claimants in order to diminish the claim by association
.   that it is grossly unprofessional to engage at that level as this is, indeed, ACTIONABLE - SUBJECT only to a disclosure of their names
.   that the stronger the claim the stronger is that traducement and the greater then is their criminal indulgence in slander
.   that this is exercised as an abuse of 'freedom of speech' which in its essence requires a full accountability and disclosure of their names
.   and that they hide behind pseudonyms and optional internet identities to avoid that accountability
.   that their efforts are well rewarded

Which I think more or less covers it.  If there are other points I'll add them.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

TK - may I propose some quid pro quo.  Is there some reason you have not addressed the points in this post of mine?

Guys, just to alert you to the 'spin' - as ever and in answer to this FIRST point of TK's earlier post....Our little TK's 'bluff and blunder' included the following statement posted as recently as two days ago.  NOTA BENE.  he has sat through classroom instruction in these topics.  The topic under discussion was 'how to determine dissipated or delivered energy from a switched circuit?'  He then claims that he 'sat exams' on PRECISELY this subject.  And 'passed them with honours'.  And then he states not only that he is CREDENTIALED but that he has DEGREES -  ie more than 1? - from RESEARCH universities? (God alone know why he makes that distinction.  They're all dedicated to research ... I'd have thought.  LOL) In any event the gist of this post is CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL.  He's claiming credentialed knowledge of power engineering to the level of honours.  And he draws the distinction that I by contrast am nothing more than a 'high school drop out'.  This is patently untrue - easily disprovable and yet ANOTHER example of SLANDER - which is stated here...Effectively therefore he is stating that UNLESS one has the required credentials then one is NOT qualified to comment.  BUT - the hell of it is this.  His own flaunted lack of appropriate knowledge is grossly evident.  He's confusions manifold - as scheduled hereunder - and with it an amateurish level of electrical engineering that even surpasses my own.
.  He assumes a MOSFET is a mosfet
.  He refers to a CSR as a CVR
.  He computes resistance without reference to frequency and resulting impedance
.  He claims he can calibrate his instruments with reference to other uncalibrated instruments
.  He uses nominally inductive loads in his 'flaunted' efforts to replicate our own NERD circuit apparatus
.  He gives us videos - time out of mind - where it is IMPOSSIBLE to validate his multiple reference points which is utterly unprofessional
.  He claims results without ever giving a CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS schedule of those results which is utterly unprofessional
.  He concludes without giving a clear argument to support his conclusions which is utterly unprofessional
   And then the doozy
.  He ALSO now claims that you can 'infer' a wattage value from an incomplete sample range of voltage on a switching circuit

I trust that this answers his first question of this post.  I'll deal with the balance of those questions in due course.
It seems that his new name for me is Polly Parrot?  And again, guys NOTA BENE - quite apart from the disgusting level of rudeness associated with this term - is HARTI's ENDORSEMENT of this traducement.  He does NOTHING to prevent it.  Indeed - from appearances it seems that he is - rather - ACTIVELY encouraging it.  THAT is what should be of primary concern in this whole exercise.  What TK chooses to allege and infer and imply and the names he uses for me - are inconsequential - in comparison.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

"IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified) "QUOTE"

And guys... Just take a LONG HARD LOOK at this number...An INFANTILE exercise in 'name calling' and a slanderous allegation of lying.  Amusingly 'direct' and 'unrestrained' but the amusement somewhat tempered by the rather clumsy OBVIOUS - disrespect.  It's on a par a kindergarden standard of dialogue.  Possibly not even that much.  Yet no attempt at moderation. Clear evidence of malice and a flaunted refusal to co-operate on a professional level.  Intended somehow to make anyone at all think that she's clever.  Sadly.  At best it's just SO inappropriate it's actually hugely amusing.  And would require moderation - at least.This is RIDICULOUS.  IF he didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention.  Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing her abusive level of dialogue with them.  Not only that but I would, again, be subjected to another 5 pages of PROTEST - as was evident when they weakened and EXPLAINED why it was that the duty cycle needed to be incorporated into the analysis of WATTAGE.  We all know where that one went.  Still not addressed.  And STILL Rosemary is trying to argue that she was correct. And this is simply a 'doozy'.  They were, after all, the ones who needed to point out HER rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power.  And NOW?  She claims that everyone is suffering form 'abysmal ignorance'?  And this is meant to be taken seriously?  The tactics are SO obvious that it's actually intellectually INSULTING.  It's factually slanderous.  It's tactically transparent.  And it's criminally abusive.  AGAIN.  No effort to moderate.  Apparently Harti sees no need. And as for this?  What a load of nonsense.  I'm years old.  I have, myself, attended a college.  WHY would I not know that there are MANY people who have MULTIPLE degrees - in many unrelated fields.  What's new?  I haven't even commented on this.  I only commented on Rosemary's claim to have a proper education in electronics.  In SCIENCE to boot.  Why then does she NOT know that you cannot take an unrepresentative sample from a small part of a duty cycle - and CLAIM that it in any way can be represented as a reliable measure of watts. It STILL hasn't been answered.  And why, if she is, as she claims, a 'professional' - does she act as a criminal?  The two terms are mutually exclusive.

"IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT" (Modified) "END QUOTE"  


Rosemary's looking for any reason to get banned because of the request on re-testing .....

1) Stefan will not give her a thread at Over Unity and her as "MODERATOR" of that thread ( which is the correct choice for the right reasons )

2) Any re-testing done will indicate a "ERROR" in her prior testing and evaluation work which would make her "THESIS" incorrect, mute and it's death.

3) Any re-testing "IF" done would have to totally agree with or duplicate the prior (incorrect) testing and evaluation done to keep the "THESIS" theory intact and that can't be done with all the prior outstanding questions answered from OU members she argues her word salad with.

4) It is my opinion that Rosemary has also destroyed the prior "COP>INFINITY" device as she did to the "COP>17" device, removing of all the evidence related to this new claim. The reason I feel knowing this is the lack of a response to the Rshunt requests for more information and or a photograph relating to the uh inductance. I could understand the fighting of her published data and how it was collected but to hold out information on the Rshunt makes no sense at all other than the device is gone.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model".



FTC

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

To respond to the issue of who's on the payroll of Free Energy Strike Force Five...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmgaTPz63Bw