Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Actually TK

YES
THEY
HAVE

BUT - it's buried in the absurd scientificese that picowatt uses to pretend he knows science.  It's that absurd reach when he describes the colours of the Emperors New Cloak.
TEDIOUS
IN
THE
EXTREME

See how she lies and misrepresents? It's no wonder, though, because she doesn't read words, she just looks at shapes.

AINSLIE: READ THIS _{if you can}:

NOBODY

HAS

EVER

SAID

THAT

A    NEGATIVE VOLTAGE

TO THE GATE

WILL TURN A MOSFET ON.

Again, you hare hallucinating and you are responding to your hallucinations, not  to facts.

A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE TO THE SOURCE, like picowatt has been saying, WILL TURN A MOSFET ON, and anyone can prove this for themselves. I'll even make a video for you, idiot Ainslie. You won't watch it of course, and even if you did you wouldn't understand it, and even if you DID you'd still lie about it or insult someone about it.

If only you were right about something even occasionally, you might be entertaining. But as it is, you are simply useless, a mockery, a parody of yourself. You are simultaneously the most arrogant and the most stupid, ignorant person I have ever met, and I live amongst cholo gangsters.

It's that absurd post that you needed to write following on from his - where you gave an alternate OPINION as you put it - while you attempted to show a qualified SUPPORT

ROSIE POSE
AKA
POLLY PARROT
AKA
MISS MOSFET

[fuzzytomcat]

Rosemary's slimy slug trail goes on and on ...

Hello again Little TK,

She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.

Not actually.  Your own efforts at so called 'documentation' of my work is all the proof that's needed that you guys can spin data any way you choose.  No need to refer to facts.  I didn't let my offer to Stefan lapse. I simply changed my mind.  His preferred editorial bias was beginning to bother me.

Keeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.

Again.  Not actually.  It seems that all that's needed is the apparatus or close inspection of the apparatus to enable replications.  Unlike you the genuine researcher doesn't first rampage through public threads with overly abundant evidence of calumny and malice - before he asks for more evidence.  Such bad manners does not, usually, generate an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.

Which reminds me.  I need to repost a post of mine - lest the public think for one minute that you're in a position to comment on anything at all.

Rosie Pose

As everyone can see the selective response to TK's posting leaving out the paragraph .....

But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.

The response from Rosemary isn't a excuse but a open admission of purposively committing a fraud on the "open source community" with inaccurate and misleading statements, cobbled published testing and evaluation information to get experimentalist to do her work. The slimeball quote of Rosemary's that "I changed my mind" has always been and is not exceptionable when exploiting and manipulating help from forum members asking for help in replications to be made for conformation or verification of her said performance claim(s).

Rosemary's open admission of purposively committing a fraud and by actions has no boundaries with her, from all the lies on experts, authors, documentation to the YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc 

The protections Rosemary has put in place at her lousy pathetic self promoting forum hasn't brought one so called COP>INFINITY device author or collaborator to post any comments .... why ? It's because they don't in reality exist but only in Rosemary's sick perverted mind. 

FTC

[picowatt]

Actually TK

YES
THEY
HAVE

BUT - it's buried in the absurd scientificese that picowatt uses to pretend he knows science.  It's that absurd reach when he describes the colours of the Emperors New Cloak.
TEDIOUS
IN
THE
EXTREME

It's that absurd post that you needed to write following on from his - where you gave an alternate OPINION as you put it - while you attempted to show a qualified SUPPORT

ROSIE POSE
AKA
POLLY PARROT
AKA
MISS MOSFET

Yes, I can now completely understand how a well written, concise, and technically accurate description of the operation of your circuit would seem absolutrly absurd to you. 

Why not show that post to an EE and point out all its absurdity to him or her?  Why not confirm the +12 volts to Q1 with LeCroy?

You really are afraid of the truth, aren't you?

[TinselKoala]

Actually TK

YES
THEY
HAVE

BUT - it's buried in the absurd scientificese that picowatt uses to pretend he knows science.  It's that absurd reach when he describes the colours of the Emperors New Cloak.
TEDIOUS
IN
THE
EXTREME

It's that absurd post that you needed to write following on from his - where you gave an alternate OPINION as you put it - while you attempted to show a qualified SUPPORT

ROSIE POSE
AKA
POLLY PARROT
AKA
MISS MOSFET

Nope, nowhere in that post or any other has anyone said that a negative voltage to the gate of a mosfet will turn that mosfet on (n-channel mosfets).
If you think he did, it is TRIVIAL to produce the quotation supporting your assertions.... but you cannot, because your assertion is a lie.

[picowatt]

Read it again, this time more   S   L   O   W   L   Y...

Attempt to comprehend what is being said before you refer to it as "absurd".

Ask questions, learn...

Dear readers,

I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.

She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly.  Now she wants some method to test this.  An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy.  Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly. 

In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on.  The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on.  Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic.  There can be no other explanation.  This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.   

Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in)  is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly.  I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.

From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.

She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on.  Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.

In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR.  The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR.  This is as plain as day for all to see.  Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2,  She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal.  The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR").  All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR. 

When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7).  Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate.  There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.

When the Fg output is a negative voltage,  the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off.  Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).  When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) .  However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG.  This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG.  Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it.  Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation.  Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements).  As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen.  As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases.  The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias.  (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why.  And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)

But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed.  She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense.  The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage.  The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth.  Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.

I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected.  Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".

It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).

These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".

PW