Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well Rosie Posie, don't forget to include your own postings in that list.  You know the low-life down-in-the-gutter despicable postings where you try denigrate and try to make fun of serious technical discussions and try to pretend that your audience is going along with you?  Also, don't forget to include all of your own postings where you have been caught lying red-handed.  That's one hell of a lot of postings.

Also, you might want to include all of the postings were you are so clueless and/or completely lost and/or making technical statements that are so ridiculous that they are right out of the Bizarro Universe.  It's the anguish factor that you inflict on your audience that's so offensive.  That's one hell of a lot of postings.

MileHigh

Hello MileHigh
Your general contributions here are somewhat trivial and I would recommend that there are those posts you've made that are retained for their sheer comic value.  It would be a shame to see such artistry deleted from public record.

Rosie Pose 

[polln8r]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4

for some reason, this clip came to mind today.

How ridiculous some people can be.

[Groundloop]

@All,

Did some testing on the oscillation cycle.

TEST OF BIAS CURRENT IN OSCILLATION MODE:

With Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 4,98 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 2,04 Watt.

Pulled Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 3,36 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 1,68 Watt.

Circuit did oscillate in both cases and the Q1 MOSFET did operate in the linear region.

This test shows us that there is some energy going through the Q2 internal diode from the BIAS
supply and not all energy is going through the RLOAD. So in the first case the BIAS supply is adding
1.68 Watt to RLOAD and 0,36 Watt is returned to the BIAS supply because of Q2 internal diode.

GL.

[TinselKoala]

How about if we START by going back to the FIRST time Stefan asked you to STOP posting your rants, Ainslie, and to instead post your TESTS which might address or refute some of the things I've pointed out in my videos?

I'll tell you something right here: I do not respond well to censorship. I've worked hard on this project, and before me others have worked hard on it, .99 especially, while Ainslie herself only types and types and insult and threatens and types. NOTHING USEFUL has been uttered by AINSLIE regarding this circuit or the general program of testing and characterising it for over a year. OTHER PEOPLE, though, are working hard, at their own expense, and it is AINSLIE who is trying to suppress, cover up, and censor that work. AGAIN.

If anyone needs to be restrained, prevented from polluting threads with rants, spam, insults, slander and libel.... it is AINSLIE HERSELF, who stopped contributing anything constructive months and months ago.

Besides, Ainslie is making no claims any more. See the post image below.

THIS thread isn't even about her or her circuit..... it is about trying to get TAR BABY to perform just like her circuit, and to do that we have to understand fully those scopeshots and other REAL ACTUAL DATA from the NERD device.  And since Ainslie's statements about the trials and the data collection and even the circuit diagram itself CANNOT BE TRUSTED, as shown by many many citations and references to her own words..... Her presence and feedback is NO LONGER REQUIRED and it would be better for this project if she would just GO AHEAD AND PERFORM HER OWN TESTS... or just go away completely.

As long as I have experimental reports from MY APPARATUS, there will be a "need" for this thread. As long as OTHER PEOPLE have questions about the NERD device and its performance, there will be a "need" for this thread. If AINSLIE wants to REFUTE anything in this thread, let her do so with demonstrations of her own, with references to checkable sources, and with CORRECTED ARITHMETIC. Her normal posts consisting of rants, insults, threats, and continued bloviating without content.... those are not needed.

This particular thread right here, if ALL of Ainslie's useless and insulting comments were deleted, would become one of the most scientific and educational threads on this forum. Ainslie's rants, coverups, refusals to answer simple questions, attacks, and so on.... her REFUSAL EVEN TO WATCH my video demonstrations.... illustrate just what kind of a person she is and how she attempts to cover up and censor the real truth about her, her "experiments" and the NERD circuit's performance. But in her ignorance of oscilloscopes, she has failed to realise that the DATA reveal everything and cannot lie.

Her normal posts consisting of rants, insults, threats, outright lies, and continued bloviating without content.... those are not needed.


How about if we take a simple vote. Let whoever wishes to speak out on Ainslie's behalf, do so here. After a few days, let's count the number of supporters who want this thread deleted, and compare that to the number of people who DON'T want to see this thread censored.

And if AINSLIE herself objects to being called an arrogant idiot ignoramus without skills and who continues to be arrogant and mendacious.... well, let her STOP DOING THOSE THINGS then that illustrate her idiocy and arrogant mendacity. Start by letting her correct her many math errors and the conclusions she has falsely drawn from them. And let her learn some basic skills, like how to draw simple schematics for example, and how to conform to standard scientific terminology.

And of course there is a very simple way for her to put a stop to all this criticism and we all know what it is.

But that will never happen. Ainslie will not be performing any real tests of her apparatus.

[TinselKoala]

@All,

Did some testing on the oscillation cycle.

TEST OF BIAS CURRENT IN OSCILLATION MODE:

With Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 4,98 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,17 Ampere = 2,04 Watt.

Pulled Q2:
Main Input: 24 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 3,36 Watt.
Bias Input: 12 Volt @ 0,14 Ampere = 1,68 Watt.

Circuit did oscillate in both cases and the Q1 MOSFET did operate in the linear region.

This test shows us that there is some energy going through the Q2 internal diode from the BIAS
supply and not all energy is going through the RLOAD. So in the first case the BIAS supply is adding
1.68 Watt to RLOAD and 0,36 Watt is returned to the BIAS supply because of Q2 internal diode.

GL.

@GL: I am confused by your drawing. Do your Q1 and Q1 designations correspond to what we have been using here? When the circuit is in NEGATIVE BIAS mode and oscillating, it is the gate of Q1 (and source of Q2) that receives the negative bias polarity, and it is the gate of Q2 (and source of Q1) that receives the positive bias polarity.
In your diagram it looks like you are calling "Q1" what we have been calling Q2. It does matter. Could you explain how your diagram relates to the one below, which preserves the Q1 and Q2 designations that Ainslie has assured us is correct?

(ETA: Is it that you are applying a NEGATIVE polarity to the "red" FG input marked + your drawing? ) That is why I have recommended against labelling these FG INPUT points to the board with "positive" and "negative" symbols.  Just use RED and BLACK to correspond to the Ainslie FG alligator clips.
Then when the FG puts a NEGATIVE polarity into the RED terminal, nobody will get confused. At least maybe I won't.