Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

And guys, while I'm at it - may I remind you all.

This technology that we've open sourced is intended for applications that will enhance energy efficiencies - NOTHING ELSE.  TK is trying his damnedest to avoid reference to that efficiency and is taking you all on a goose path related to complex applications that have NOTHING to do with efficient energy transfer.

YOU LIE. Open source means that your information is HONESTLY, CORRECTLY, and FULLY available. None of this applies to YOU, you lying bloviator. You have lied about and concealed schematics, you have made error after error that have still not been corrected in the multiple conflicting versions of your daft manuscripts, and you are still to this day refusing to provide data that you claim exists... but probably actually does not. OPEN SOURCE? You are a hypocrite and a liar of the first water.

I do not care what applications come out of this technology.  But unless they address those efficiencies then he is wasting your time with irrelevancies.  And his  real intention is to usurp SOLE authority to comment on this technology when his agenda is precisely to DENY those efficiencies.  Therein lies the danger.

My real intention is to make you tell the truth, Ainslie. But you continue to lie and make false claims. YOU cannot support any of your claims, and I can refute them, at any time, in any venue whatsoever.

Please be aware of this objective.  It's shared with picowatt and Sean and 'The Boss' and FTC and the rest.  Some heavily vested interest in denials here.  And none of it reasonable - all of it unsubstantiated - and certainly - AT BEST - a gross abuse of open source objectives.

Lies yet again. There is FAR more substantiation for the REFUTATION of Ainslie's various mendacious claims than she has ever provided in support of them. All this is provable on demand, and NONE of what Ainslie claims, other than the numbers in her boxes, can be substantiated by her at all. The numbers in boxes have been shown to be incorrectly obtained and improperly analyzed and the claims based on them shown to be bogus... all documented by several independent researchers, all repeatable on demand, UNLIKE Ainslie's claimed "work".

I might add that not only is their standard of posting an ABUSE of forum guidelines, the most of their references to our work and my part in it is criminal - abusive - and it includes their criminality in making facts known that they've rifled from my computer. 

You repeat that slanderous lie as much as you like. Every time you do you are committing yet another CRIME that you will eventually pay for, so go ahead, dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

What's particularly ominous is that far from caring about this flaunted disrespect Stefan Hartman is actually encouraging it.  That's certainly cause for concern.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Nobody, but nobody, has EVER shown the degree of disrespect for our host, and the violation of forum guidelines that YOU YOURSELF have shown. Several of us have in fact ASKED STEFAN NOT TO BAN YOU, because we feel that you need to face your medicine here. This is the only place left where you are exposed to the truth about yourself and your claims, Ainslie. What is cause for concern is that you  open your own forums and blogs where contrary voices are censored and information is tightly controlled by YOU. You think you can lie and insult and threaten with impunity.... but you cannot. Your actions will have consequences, Ainslie, and you will soon be finding out what some of those are.

[TinselKoala]

Not actually little TK.  I'm ALREADY experiencing consequences.  Your prolonged attack has had serious consequences on my health.  I put on record that this disgusting thread and all those other flamed threads are  the single cause of my condition which is certainly life threatening.  You and MileHigh and the rest are attempting to destroy my work and my name along with it.  And IN FACT you have CERTAINLY been instrumental in destroying my health.  And you really think that you can avoid accountability?  Trust me on this.  You're even in my will.  You all are.

Rosie Pose

(sound of tiny violins playing sad music)

You are the lowest of the low. You want to blame ME for your "illness"? For destroying your health? You are a ridiculous, old, SICK, woman indeed.

You really should take up this health issue with the person that forces you to spend so much time on the internet, insulting and threatening all and sundry. Maybe you can convince your keepers to let you go outside and get some sun occasionally.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

A challenge for picowatt

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2762.html#msg2762

[TinselKoala]

Two challenges for Ainslie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo

Quoting Ainslie:

What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'.

(sic)

Well, child.... are your lessons done?
  -- Leonard Cohen

[picowatt]

The quote:


"It seems that picowatt is rather anxious to challenge our claim that the battery is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each switched cycle.  Effectively he is relying on the assumption that the energy is either FROM the battery or FROM the function generator - OR BOTH. And that it NEVER adds to the general efficiency of the system.

He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION.  And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion.

Regards,
Rosie"


Frankly, you have a very crappy attitude.  If you want to learn what is happening during the oscillation phase and understand the AC current path, then get off your "know it all" pedestal and just ask.

I particularly like this part:

"He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION.  And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion."

This is not an allegation.  Its called "electronics".  Is this how you ask someone to teach you?  Such attitude.  If this were the rules, so to speak, your opinions would have been ENTIRELY discounted a long time ago.  I, for one, am still waiting for you to address the Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 issue.  But you don't, so should we just dismiss in entirety all of your opinions?  Possibly that would indeed make the most sense.   


After seeing you struggle with the simplest of concepts regarding your circuit's DC conditions, I will not waste my time trying to teach you "why" the circuit oscillates.

However, if you are only asking about how the AC currents pass thru Q2 while the circuit is oscillating and as Q2's on state is modulated, the AC current path is, for the most part, thru Coss, Ciss, and Crss, the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances.  This has already been discussed.  The three main MOSFET capacitances, Coss, Css, and Crss represent significant AC paths from the drain to the source of Q2.  These are very significant and very real capacitances, well documented in the IRFPG50 data sheet.  It is thru these capacitances that the bulk of the AC current flows during oscillation.

Next time you want to know something, drop the snotty attitude and just ask...


ADDED:

As I caught up on reading the thread this morning, all in all it was pretty ugly, with all that non-stop battling and threatening.  But, there was one good chuckle to be had.  That was the reference made to a bunch of EE's and tech's pretending to be particle physicists.  The only person pretending to be a "particle physicist" around here is definitely no EE or tech!