another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, as anyone reading can tell you, the one refusing to carry on a meaningful discussion is YOU.  You are claiming a monetary prize based on the claim that your batteries have not discharged measureably even though you have done 18 months or more of testing like the one where you made the erroneous calculation AND CONCLUSION. For evidence you have offered only oscilloscope data WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS and .... words.

Several people posting here have proposed perfectly acceptable tests of your claims, and you find any reason you can not to perform them. Fine. I WILL PERFORM THEM, if I have to reproduce your crazy circuit down to the last error and cliplead color. When I do, you will no longer be able even to claim your prize, because I will have gotten there first. Not that I'm going to be claiming any prizes based on false claims, you understand.
So YOU HAD BETTER HURRY UP and stop maligning me and get cracking. AGREE WITH .99 or come to some acceptable compromise that ELIMINATES YOUR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION, and soon.

I see nothing wrong with the test I have proposed. Use an arrangement that precludes charging by the FG: I have shown how this can be done, by one of many methods. Personally I would use an optoisolator. Maybe someone can explain that to you; you will still get your oscillations (I think) even with the optoisolator preventing the FG from providing power. Then have six fully charged batteries. Select three and set aside. Run your circuit, make soup or tea, HEATING A LOAD preferably to boiling, since that's easy for you, for a decent time on the other three. Let's say two or three days. Video using a timelapse webcam -- twenty dollars for the camera and free software. Your grandchild can probably help you here. Then take those batteries and the ones that were set aside and do a "dark bulb" rundown comparison, again on timelapse video. It would be best if you use low-capacity batteries, but if you want to use your 40 A-H ones, fine. But you will have to charge them conventionally first.

First bulb to go dark..... loses. Repeat the test a few times, randomizing and conventionally recharging the batteries before each test. Three out of five for the big win.

And not a single instrumental measurement or interpretation need be done by anyone anywhere, except for the "smart" automatic automotive battery charger deciding when the battery is fully charged.

I think .99's test is better and should be performed as soon as possible. But for a test that would convince ANYBODY (if done honestly) do mine. Harvey's actually, since I think he first proposed it waaay back when you were annoying the Energetic Forum with your nonsense.


OH... and I take back what I said about you being an ineffectual old woman. In fact I think that you are a genuinely evil withered and dessicated crone, the very definition of an under-the-bridge dwelling troll, getting off on making people react to you. Comparing me to Hitler--- and using my alleged "shortness" as "evidence" in support...... you really are an evil crone.

Bear in mind, please.... the owner of this thread lives in Germany, and might be able to illustrate one or two differences between me and dear Adolph. Or are you as naive about history as you are about mathematics, physics, electronics, publishing standards, editorial requirements and science in general?

[poynt99]

TK,

It looks like you are getting very close there. Where is the 0-line for the Drain voltage? Can we get a zoom-in on the Drain wave form?

The only difference I see so far is the gradual turn-on, and turn-off of the oscillation absent in your wave form. This could be due to the larger capacitance associated with the PG50 vs. your 830's.

[tak22]

As one of the 3 occasional viewers of this soap opera, I've been struggling
with trying to find an analogy for what's going on here. It's not a debate,
it's not all that scientific (some is), it's not respectful (some is), it's not very
productive, and definitely not dull.


It's not bullies against a weakling.
It's not MIB against the courageous.
It's not the little guy fighting TPTB.


But you know what really fits? Comedians mocking religions.
On the one side are groups determined to believe everything from the distant
past that was created to control them, and on the other side a group of
irreverent souls that know they have a goldmine of material that can't be
defended that's just waiting for the perfect punchline.


I can now follow this better knowing the stage it's on.


tak

[TinselKoala]

TK,

It looks like you are getting very close there. Where is the 0-line for the Drain voltage? Can we get a zoom-in on the Drain wave form?

The only difference I see so far is the gradual turn-on, and turn-off of the oscillation absent in your wave form. This could be due to the larger capacitance associated with the PG50 vs. your 830's.

The zero line for the drain voltage (looking at it DC coupled) is about 20 volts below the level of the horizontal line that breaks into oscillations. This whole waveform can be moved around quite a bit using the FG's amplitude and offset controls, but appears just fine at zero offset (using a +- square wave) when the amplitude gets over about 7 v p-p.
I'm not sure I know what you mean about "gradual turn on". In Rosemary's video they are using 10 Hz from the FG. My scope can't display a stable trace that slow--, nor can I "freeze" the trace like the Tek can do. The screenshots of my oscs are taken with 1kHz from the FG, but... and I just checked to be quite sure -- the oscs are there at 10 Hz too and look just like hers to my eye....
I'll get a zoom in in a few minutes so we can see the frequency.

Meanwhile... what do YOU, that is, .99, think of using an optocoupler circuit to isolate the FG from the current path? At this point--- since I now agree with humburger that the oscs are completely caused by the stray inductances rather than a groundloop pathway.... I don't think the oscs would be affected by this kind of coupling. But I don't know for sure and I don't have the components on hand to check. Maybe someone could sim it?
This is the kind of thing I mean:

[TinselKoala]

OK... recall that the FG in the Ainslie demo video is set at 10 Hz, confirmed by the scope trace timebase setting.
My scope won't be interpretable over the internet at 10 Hz. My earlier photos were taken at 1 kHz from the FG.

In the first photo:
Here I've set the FG to drive the circuit at 100 kiloHertz. The scope's timebase is set to 2 microseconds per division. The bottom trace , the common drains, is DC coupled, 50 volts per division, and the baseline is at one full division below the bottom edge of the blue tape (sorry, I should have changed the tape, will do next time). (Perspective makes the tape look higher than it is; I mean the scale division line a FULL division below, not the one right at the tape). So to my eye the straight-across level looks to be about 20 volts. And these look like 8 periods per 2 microseconds, or about 4 MHz... higher than I expected.

In the second photo:
Here I've set the FG to drive the circuit at 100 Hz, but I've cranked the timebase up to 1 microsecond per division. Channel settings the same as before.

(the FG was set to zero offset for these tests, the FG trace is set to 5 volts per division)

It looks to me like the oscs are at about 4 MHz in any case regardless of the stimulus. I'll try to get a precise value with the Philips counter if it seems important.

(It's also important to realize that this is NOT a true 2 beam scope; it's a 2-channel scope, and here it's being used in "alt" mode to display both channels at once. This can result in incorrect time synchronization between the two traces sometimes, so try not to read too much into the displayed phase relationships. Know your gear ! I wish I had my old Philips dualbeam scope here.... )