Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 523145
  • *Total Topics: 15575
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1469588 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4185 on: July 19, 2012, 03:36:27 PM »
@PC: don't worry, koan are not tests. They are just items for meditation. If you don't get one, or you miss the point, it doesn't result in a low grade for a class or anything serious like that. You just have to spend some more lifetimes on the Wheel of Karma before you attain nirvana. And that never hurt anyone -- in fact it gives even more opportunity to help, to reduce the suffering of sentients whenever possible.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4185 on: July 19, 2012, 03:36:27 PM »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4186 on: July 19, 2012, 03:41:27 PM »
To Mark Dansie,

Dear Mark,

I've answered you here...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg2718.html#msg2718

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4187 on: July 19, 2012, 07:41:36 PM »
 The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.
On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."
The second pupil was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.
"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.
"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.
   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4187 on: July 19, 2012, 07:41:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4188 on: July 19, 2012, 11:54:04 PM »
I hope nobody took that last koan personally, or that it was meant to stifle discussion ! We've made no vow.... most of us.... of silence, have we.

I'm not sure if we are ready yet to tackle capacitors under the Hydraulic Analogy (HA). It's possible that we still don't have the prerequisite ideas down quite pat. So before we "get all wet" with capacitors and the HA, I thought it would be best if I spent a little time reviewing some things we may have glossed over or skipped entirely on our way here.

We haven't talked about fields much at all. (It could be because Koalas don't really believe in fields as "real", but don't let that confuse _you_, or stop you from believing in them. After all we use them every day in many ways, so it's perfectly OK with me ... even quite necessary much of the time ... to treat them as if they were real, just as real as the wind or atmospheric pressure.) Of course I am speaking here of one of the two fields with which we are familiar, the electromagnetic field (EM), not to to be confused with electromotive force, emf. (There are four fields of force in all, perhaps 5, but we only directly experience EM and gravity.)

Here's another koan, sort of a mantram really:

Charge, motion, field : All one thing. One.

Charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, the electron is the carrier of the Unit Charge of one flavor, named unauspiciously "negative" by Ben Franklin well before the electron itself was even discovered and the true direction of the charge carrier flow was known, and the proton is the carrier of the Unit Charge of the other flavor, called now "positive". Voltage arises from the mutual repulsion of like charges, current arises from the flow of charge from high voltage to lower voltage _only_, and the only charge we see flowing in our daily experience is the flow of _negative charge_, carried by electrons, in circuits made of wires.

And here's where some other "quantum" ideas enter into Quantum Electrodynamics. Who has seen a proton? Well, the "H" in H2O designates a hydrogen nucleus... which is simply a proton, bound to an oxygen atom, which is also bound to another proton (the other H). But seen from a distance, the molecule is neutral overall, has no excess charge (although it is polarised, more later on that). This is because the number of electrons orbiting the molecule in total, balance the number of protons total, in the O nucleus plus the two Hs, and so the charge cancels out completely. From a distance.
Now... considering what we do know about atomic bonding, like the angles at which bonds form and the numbers and types of bonds that particular atoms can form.... we just have to reject the Bohr model of the atom and adopt the quantum chemistry view as a better model. The Bohr model, of course , has the nucleus at the center like a tiny sun, and the electrons in their orbits like little discrete planets, all whirling round in a tiny space, but still with the distance between the nucleus and the closest electron orbit relatively vast compared to the scale of the objects themselves.
This model no longer flies, and has been replaced by the concept of shells, orbitals and suborbitals, discrete (quantized) energy levels occupied by pairs of electrons, that can be shared in various ways between atoms engaged in bonding. There are two types of chemical bond: Ionic and covalent. These are endpoints of a continuum really; most bonds are probably somewhere in between. Ionic bonds, like in NaCl, table salt, happen when electrostatic forces are such that one atom actually fully "steals" an electron from the other, and then the two are "stuck together" by electrostatic attraction. Covalent bonds like in hexane, are situations when sub orbital energy levels actually overlap between two atoms and one or more electrons are actually fully shared between the atoms involved. Covalent bonds are much harder to break in general than ionic bonds. A third type, the resonant bond, a kind of super-covalent bond, is extremely important as well, and occurs in organic ring compounds, the prototype being benzene. But in the normal way of things, the positive charges of the nucleus are both extremely deep inside the atom and are extremely well shielded by multiple layers of negative charged electrons in the orbitals. So the only "positive" charge we see is when something happens to knock an electron out of its comfy orbital shell of a neutral atom... leaving that atom with an excess positive charge, which is really the _absence_ of an electron from where it should be.

I'm mentioning this to emphasise something I said earlier that is very important: we don't see positive charge in the macroscopic world except as the absence of electrons. Even when you pour a strong acid into water you wind up with H3O+ ions instead of free protons.  (acids are "proton donors" and do their thing by freeing positive protons to attack anything they can).

OK... so _all current_ that we experience is the flow of _negative charges_, unless we are working with electrolysis (where positive ions carry current slowly) or proton beam accelerators.... in which case you already know this stuff and you can just test out and go home with full credit.
And this flow is carried by electrons, and happens when electrons flow from regions of excess _negative charge_ to regions of lower voltage... but which still might have excess negative charge, just perhaps not so much.

We diverted into quantum chemistry for a moment in order for me to bolster my assertion that all current we are working with is the flow of negative charge, carried by electrons, from regions of excess negative charge to regions of depleted negative charge. We call "positive" and "negative" the endpoints of that flow, or use those terms to designate the direction of the potential difference in volts. There is no "positive current" in normal electric circuits. There are regions with relatively positive and relatively negative charge... but all the mobile charge we see is made of unit negative charges carried by electrons. And here is where Ben Franklin screwed us up royally by tossing a monkey wrench into our concepts.

Today we know the facts about current flow, that it is the flow of the unit charge on the electron from regions of excess to regions of dearth. Franklin knew that something was flowing in the early electrical circuits of his time, and that this something was related to well-known electrostatic phenomena (although they weren't called that at that time). When he had to talk about the flow of this something in a consistent manner, he arbitrarily named the two species of electrostatic charge "positive" and "negative" based on the way electrostatic machines appeared to behave to him. Later on, it turned out that what he had named "negative" charge was due to the accumulation of those strange little electrons, each with their own identical inseparable unit charge. And it turned out that real current was due to the flow of these things from More Negative to Less Negative regions... in other words, exactly backwards from Ben Franklin's original arbitrary assignment of the names "positive" and "negative". One after all expects a flow to go from a positive region TO a negative one, not the other way around !
So.. so-called "conventional" current is viewed as flowing out from the positive pole of the power supply, through the circuit elements, and into the negative pole of the supply. But what is actually happening is just the reverse: negative charge, carried by electrons, is flowing from the negative pole through the circuit TO the positive pole, progressively neutralising the positive charge... which is really a lack of electrons.... at the plus pole of the battery.
There is no positive current really. It is an accident of convention, a result of Ben's great wrong guess, and by the time the electron was discovered it was too late to change the names.

Well... that was a digression away from fields. As tree-dwellers we Koalas do tend to avoid fields... but we have to cross them eventually nevertheless. More digression into prereqs to come.... thanks for your attention, and remember:

Charge, motion, field: One. One thing, one.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4189 on: July 20, 2012, 01:16:16 AM »
I prefer to use water because its very incompressibility means it can transfer energy "instantly" (really at the speed of sound) in spite of flowing slowly, just like electrons somehow can. Let's save the springy compressibility effects for components, like specifically inductors and capacitors.


Thats fine. Ive just considered different factors as to why I like the air pressure more.

I find it hard to see a water circuit being in resonance like a air pressure circuit. Hydrolic fluid, depending on the type, can have a slowly dying wave for a long time in an open container or say a lake. But in a closed circuit, no air pockets or bubbles, the resistance of the flow and the weight of the fluid dont tend to cancel each other out as a factor.

In reality, I see electric charge, and electron flow as compressible, like air or gas. Didnt Tesla say this? ;] Maybe Tesla wasnt into Zen. ;]

Lets say we have a pipe from NJ to CA filled with water and also a set of twisted cables or coax along side of it, AND a fiber optic line. Which one wil deliver output in CA first when a signal is applied in NJ? Is water compressible? Is there a delay like the wire or fiber optics? What is the delay due to? Compression? ;]

So to use hydrolics as an example for electronic flow, other things are needed in order to simulate expansion and compression, like rubber diaphragm walls in a container to simulate a capacitors function. Those added items can add to the complexity of function. Where air pressure can be just a twin container with an opening in each side for connection, and the air is what is being compressed and decompressed, like a charge on the plate of a capacitor, the plate doesnt change physical size when the charge on it is increased or decreased. No moving parts. So here I find gas to be a better candidate. Also for learning, gas is a clearer representation. Tesla. You know Big T. ;]

My experience with building and understanding speaker and subwoofer boxes gives me insight as to how sound waves work, in the box and out to the listener.
Sealed box, bass reflex(ported, vented), 4th order band pass, sixth order banpass, series tuned reflex( has 2 resonant peaks generally 30 and 60 hz for a nice sound, like the 6th order band pass but with the speaker cone facing out of the box) Isoloading(clamshelling 2 woofers in 1 box will need a box half the size of 1 to sound the same but also a better quality, at the expense of 2 woofers and more power to equal 1 in a recommended box. ;]

So I can see these bandpass, low pass and high pass circuits in electronics and in sound waves. Very similar, just sound is limited to a band of freq and electronics is also, just a wider band.

I find hydrolic to be over damped but gasses in soundwaves to be a better compromise. Without induction the inertia of a moving charge doesnt carry the same weight as water. So its another factor. 

There are many reasons. Try a pipe loop of water with a simulated capacitor made of a tank with a flexible diaphragm and try to get it to oscillate. Not much I bet. Or maybe a u shaped pipe and get it to oscillate up one side and down the other, how long will it oscillate? It will oscillate some, and we have to figure in gravity as part of that circuit.  ;D Just too complicated. Gas is closer to doing things similar to charge and electron flow on its own, without all the props of flexing this and gravity dependent that.

Anyways, I gota read the rest of the thread after I eat to see what the next challenge is.

MaGs

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4189 on: July 20, 2012, 01:16:16 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4190 on: July 20, 2012, 02:25:11 AM »
@Mags.... I can tell you have never experienced a "water hammer". Of course hydraulic systems in pipes can oscillate, even destructively... and even usefully. But you are right, other things like diaphragms and pistons and reservoirs of springy compressed air help a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIFVGq3RFRE

Air pressure is involved too of course.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4191 on: July 20, 2012, 02:48:53 AM »
Quote
Anyways, I gota read the rest of the thread after I eat to see what the next challenge is.

The challenge is the same as it's always been: to try to flush out the "bad air" that prevents one... someone... from breathing in the fresh air of truth, in order that enlightenment can occur.

I am in no way trying to give some kind of comprehensive course in QED or electrical parameters. I am, rather, trying to instil a firm grounding in some very basic fundamentals that I feel are lacking, and which lack is producing this incredible block to further understanding and progress.  I feel that replacing the incorrect model that is guiding one's perceptions with a more precisely defined and operational model... along with _real_ meditation upon the koan, both Zen and electrical... and especially video.... that I have presented, is actually necessary for progress. This understanding might be attainable by different means; here I choose to be explicit about what I feel is misunderstood and is essential for proper understanding: charge and its characteristics.

Quote
In reality, I see electric charge, and electron flow as compressible, like air or gas.


Yes, and I've tried to make that point as well. The choice of fluid is less important than the concepts analogised. For some purposes a compressible fluid works best and for others an incompressible fluid works. Sometimes it's easier to think of the "pressure" as being applied by the walls of the container... and sometimes as being applied by the fluid TO the walls of the container.

Regardless of all that, let's just try to focus on the fundamentals: charge is fundamental, charge is conserved, charge is quantized, and so on. Like charge repels like, electrons are the inseparable carriers of the unit negative charge, current is the flow of negative charge. When you accept the fundamentals, you can derive all the other behaviours and consequences therefrom.

I've posted two video koan. They are relevant to the issue of capacitors and capacitance and electrical fields and forces. They are also difficult to model either hydraulically or pneumatically, since the _field_ is involved. I sincerely hope that everyone has watched and contemplated them: the perpetual pingpong ball and the oil jet demo. I will be discussing them anon.

Charge, motion, field: One thing, one.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4191 on: July 20, 2012, 02:48:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4192 on: July 20, 2012, 03:06:06 AM »
The two previous video koan are showing "electrostatic" phenomena, and in addition both provide yet more empirical evidence of the kind that MrSean2k asked for.

Electrostatics is the branch of electronics that deals with high, sometimes very high indeed, voltages, and very low, often essentially zero, currents. The voltages are so high that the electric field from charged objects extends to palpable distances in space and exerts very strong forces--- much much stronger than gravity, for example.

In the following video, the entire Earth is pulling against that pingpong ball with its gravity, and the electrostatic force of a tiny fraction of a Coulomb of charge is able to pull it away against gravity entirely. The voltages involved are so very high that the tens of megohms of my body's resistance are as nothing, and the tiny current involved flows through me as if I were a pure conductor of truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-jrlGC-aA




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4193 on: July 20, 2012, 05:44:26 AM »
Posted from Energy and Shifting Paradigms.com.

And Guys, as this thread is to do with 'troll spin' - let me put record to something that weighs heavy on the mind.  We have relied heavily on the assumption that open sourcing information is 'the way to go' - in order to spread the word about the evidence that energy is not constrained to standard assumptions.  The proof is that we can measure something that defies anything possible within the constraints of Kirchhoff's unity requirements or in terms of our known thermodynamic laws.  However, I have now been rather exposed to the attendant dangers of this process.   Which constitutes a gross breach of that rather noble reach.  Indeed I am concerned that there is any value at all in this approach.  And yet, without it - I cannot see how we can spread the word.  And the value of open sourcing this knowledge is to prove that we do not need our traditional energy supply monopolists.  Energy - from our evidence - is freely available and simply requires development to application.  And this, in turn, threatens the interests of those monopolists who rely on those early assumptions related to our unity requirements.  Rather than rehash the multiple bases those objections let me list what we intend doing when I get back here from my operation - and as ever, God willing.  For the record - there has been no let up of the abuse against this work of ours and against my good name for the entire time that I have attempted to bring these facts to the table.  The latest and most disgusting of them all is courtesy our internet personality known as TinselKoala - who has engaged in a level of public criticism and humiliation that is both inhumane in its delivery and psychopathic in its self interest.  On both fronts their behaviour has been legally actionable and morally unacceptable.

- We will do live internet broadcasts of tests run and filmed in real time
- We will show two systems drawing down the same amount of energy from a battery supply
- The one will be a standard series application of a load
- The others will be variants of our circuit
- We guarantee that you will see the control deplete its energy before the test has even discharged a small fraction of a volt

Which will constitute unequivocal proof of our claim.  The good news is this.  You will, most assuredly, be shown the evidence in real time.  All our tests will be more comprehensive than described in the above points.  Reasonable comparisons will be made as to the energy being dissipated at the loads in both the test and the controls. Any arguments as to any extraneous energy being introduced - will be addressed.  And the data from that process will be available in whatever format is required and will be forwarded to select and trusted laboratories for their inspection.

Because these draw down tests are extensive - by their nature - then the tests themselves will probably extend over some considerable period of time.  But I anticipate that this will be a good thing. As it will give our readers time to engage fully.  During this process I intend to also make smaller videos to address sundry claims that have been voiced with a sorry lack of decency and constraint - and with considerably less scientific justification than is merited. 

When this process is completed I intend engaging all those internet personalities who have taken the trouble to slander and malign my good name - and to misrepresent this hard work - and I will require a retraction of their claims and a public apology.  Failing which I will take legal action against them.  That is my promise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4193 on: July 20, 2012, 05:44:26 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4194 on: July 20, 2012, 06:30:15 AM »
And for those of you who are following TK's absurd rendition of the 'classical approach' - may I caution you.  This is NOT even a reasonable rendition of QED concepts.  It appears to be the eccentric machinations of TK's own delusions.  Further - this nonsense which is an apology of an explanation - at best - is intended rather laughable as it is - to defend the fact that unity cannot be breached.

He ERRS.  HOPELESSLY.

If you wish to be informed as to the actual confusions related to the standard model - here's a link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593

Regards,
Rosemary
edited spelling
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 07:34:37 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4195 on: July 20, 2012, 08:16:34 AM »
You are not qualified to criticise, Ms. Ainslie. You may ask questions about that which you do not understand.

I have asked YOU if you see anything in the videos, How Mosfets Work, 2,3,and 4, that you disagree with, do not expect, do not understand or think is impossible. You have not deigned to answer.

You once again make accusations, claims and insults without the slightest shred of support or proof. If you think that I err in any manner, you are free to provide examples, demonstrations, and outside references to support your points. But you NEVER do, you never have, and you never will. And the reason is that YOU CANNOT.

Likewise this fantasy series of "tests" that you claim to be about to perform. Go ahead and perform them--- if you can. IF you are using the circuit you claim... you know, the one you sought to cover up and hide last March and April..... then you will fall flat on your face.

Meanwhile, you choose to remain ignorant, you choose to misunderstand and misrepresent what .99 is trying to show you, and from this latest little bit of kitchen slop from you, you fully intend to continue in this course. No one can educate you at all.

Meanwhile we see these: Your own admission of your intent to deceive about your schematic. Your own ridiculous statement that you NEVER examined the applied signal voltage. Your own continued garbling of whatever anyone tries to tell you. Your absurd LIE that you are "open sourced"... when nobody has ever seen your data and you have admitted covering up several different schematics and hiding and selecting data.

How do you manage to look yourself in the mirror, through such incredible hypocrisy?




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4195 on: July 20, 2012, 08:16:34 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4196 on: July 20, 2012, 08:28:37 AM »
And... after all... the proof is in the pudding. Using my conception of QED and my understanding of charge, voltage, current and so on, I am able to build things the likes of which Ainslie cannot imagine. They are so far out of her conception that she actually believes that many of the things I demonstrate in my videos must be faked. How can I possibly turn a mosfet on by simply touching the gate pin with my finger? How can I possibly transmit tens of Watts of real power across space with no wires? How can I amplify voltage -- and peak power --- to start with a 48 volt battery pack and produce 20000 volts, corona, and peak powers in the kilowatt range, on a small tabletop device?
If I err so badly.... why do these things all work for me, and why do they seem impossible to Ainslie?

"The water wasn't actually boiling.... there were small bubbles."

I laugh in your face, Ainslie.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4197 on: July 20, 2012, 08:41:10 AM »
And for those of you who are following TK's absurd rendition of the 'classical approach' - may I caution you.  This is NOT even a reasonable rendition of QED concepts.  It appears to be the eccentric machinations of TK's own delusions.  Further - this nonsense which is an apology of an explanation - at best - is intended rather laughable as it is - to defend the fact that unity cannot be breached.

He ERRS.  HOPELESSLY.

If you wish to be informed as to the actual confusions related to the standard model - here's a link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2593.html#msg2593

Regards,
Rosemary
edited spelling

What's rather "laughable", as you say, is you pretending to know anything about electronics or even basic electricity as it is currently understood.  Your link to what amounts to a short story of fiction, barely qualifying as science fiction, hardly qualifies as a "model" of anything.  From what you wrote, you have absolutely no understanding of the current models with all their mathematical precision and which fully explains all that you feel is unexplained.  Surely you should know what the current understanding is prior to developing new theories.  And, as they say, the language of physics is math, which seems absent at best in your theories.

As you attempt to grasp what .99 is trying to teach you, your extremely limited knowledge regarding basic electricity and the art of electronics has become more focused for all to see.

Even now, you still cannot grasp how Q2 is turned on, what bias current is, what linear operation is, what negative feedback is, why there is a voltage drop across the FG's 50R, or even what a solid black line on a schematic means.  And now, without a full grasp of these basic concepts related to the very simple DC conditions regarding Q2, you feel you are ready to take on the much more complex AC conditions, wherein an understanding of positive feedback, and inductive and capacitive phase shift and reactance are required on top of that required for the DC condition.

You also seek to prove whether Q2 is passing bias current in an upcoming test, yet if you fully understood the captures you have already provided, you would already see that bias current is indeed flowing thru Q2.  It is obvious to anyone who can read a 'scope and who understands MOSFET's and function generators.  Again, the proof that Q2 is biased on at approximately 160ma (plus/minus 50ma) is right there on your 'scope captures.  And if you do go looking for Q2 bias current at the CSR, what voltage would you expect to see if 160ma is flowing?

In light of all this, I find it "laughable", as you say, that you think yourself qualified to comment on any aspect of your circuit's operation.  Yet, you call those who are qualified to do so a "joke".

And then there is this quote from over there:


"When this process is completed I intend engaging all those internet personalities who have taken the trouble to slander and malign my good name - and to misrepresent this hard work - and I will require a retraction of their claims and a public apology.  Failing which I will take legal action against them.  That is my promise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary "


I am assuming this is a two way street.  When you finally realize that Q1 is not functioning or not connected properly in your FIG3 and FIG7, and when you finally realize that Q2 is never "disconnected from the battery" but is in reality biased into linear operation during the oscillation, and when you finally realize that there is indeed a low impedance path for AC current during oscillation, and when you finally realize that a "wire is not always just a wire" due to its inductance, I will also be expecting retractions and public apologies from you.  But I fear it will be some time before your learning curve allows you to understand these things, so I for one, will not be holding my breath.

If you disagree with any claim I have made regarding inaccuracies and errors in your papers, you need only show my comments to a qualified EE who will surely agree with my assertions.  Even your "supposed lab" should be knowledgeable enough to back up the assertions made regarding your circuit's operation and the issues regarding Q1 not turning on in the discussed captures.  If you like, I will gather all my pertinent comments into one post if that would assist you in obtaining a consult regarding this.  But, you won't, apparently you fear the truth.  You won't even verify the 'scope reading regarding Q1 with LeCroy, and again, it must be out of fear of the truth.

As far as any future testing you may perform, based on your demonstrated limitations, I do not believe anyone will have much confidence in any results YOU obtain.  I suggest you find an EE or someone who actually understands electronics and test equipment to perform future tests and review your commentary and analysis before producing another error ridden document.

And I must ask, based on your commentary in the link you provide, do you actually believe that in the current understanding regarding electricity and electronics we actually create, destroy, or somehow "use up" electrons?  No wonder you feel the current views need to be rewritten, you apparently have never learned what the current views actually are...
 


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4198 on: July 20, 2012, 09:26:19 AM »
 In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.
"I do not need a lantern," he said. "Darkness or light is all the same to me."
"I know you do not need a lantern to find your way," his friend replied, "but if you don't have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it."
The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him.
"Look out where you are going!" he exclaimed to the stranger. "Can't you see this lantern?"
"Your candle has burned out, brother," replied the stranger.
 

Offline The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4199 on: July 20, 2012, 02:59:54 PM »
 
 A link to a US Army training instructional, helping to better understand TK's latest build:   http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/24-18/fm24-18_4.htm

 

OneLink