another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE? Your over reliance on this piece of misinformation is tedious - IN THE EXTREME.  IF there was ever any confusion it was NOT of my making but of your own.  I have NEVER been guilty of saying, implying or assuming that the math trace was doing anything more nor less than giving a product of the voltages.  IT IS USED AS A GUIDE ONLY.  When we get that negative product then - WE WILL ALSO, INEVITABLY AND OBVIOUSLY AND LOGICALLY - GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. 

Rosie Pose

WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE?

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292765/#msg292765          Reply #1615 on: June 25, 2011, 09:28:30 PM

Yes Happy.  I can.  Unequivocally.  There is  NO drop in battery voltage.  And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C  over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes.  And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values.  And, frankly, I was getting nervous.  But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY.  EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES.  Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.

Regards,
Rosemary

And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery


Liar .....   


FTC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And MilesOffThePoint
I too could show how that voltage changes when I apply the probe to junctions - behind junctions - anywhere I chose.  It doesn't take genius. It only requires artifice.  It is used HERE to imply that the scope values are wrong.  I am ENTIRELY satisfied that LeCroy would have MUCH to say about this gross and deliberate distortion when it's intended to cast doubt on their machines' ability to compute a simple voltage.  OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.

Rosemary:

TK's clip showing the pitfalls of measurement is simply something that you have never been able to understand.  He demonstrating how the inherent inductance in the wire can cause a voltage spike to appear.  That's something that's beyond your comprehension.

And deliberate attempts to cast aspersions is absolutely NOT beyond my ability to understand.  The only difference here is that TK went to some considerable trouble to DENY the benefits in the Joule Thief.  There is no evidence of over unity that he can allow.  And he does not rely on science to deny it.  The difference is this.  No one, before me, and possibly Wilby - has challenged our TK on his manifold and deliberate misrepresentations.  Which makes me question rather urgently - what misrepresentations were applied to Mylow.  And what is still to come related to cold fusion.  And then WHY?  Has he really got all that investment in oil?  Or is he just as determined as you to put a lid on real scientific research - just for the hell of it?

PW:With respect, I am going to pass on the scope shot analysis - there is too much uncertainty in the air and I view it as a moot point.

LOL Why not just 'fess up and admit that was NOT your analysis.  You're not capable of that much.  My guess it was Poynty's contribution.  I doubt TK would manage it.

Please note that just earlier tonight Rosemary denied that the circuit diagram that I marked up was the true circuit demoed in her clip.

Really MileHigh?  I denied that it was demonstrated?  Or did I deny that it was the circuit that applied to our claim?  I'm not sure that our own circuit schematic has those shunts positioned as you've shown them in your reference to someone's?... not sure whose... annotations.

Hence the annotated version of the screen capture of the bottom of the pegboard to prove that the diagram that I am using is indeed the correct schematic diagram for the circuit.  Hence you get the current flow bypassing the current sensing resistor in negative offset oscillation mode.

It is CORRECT for the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our CLAIM is ONLY detailed in our paper.  That CLAIM does not rely on that ANNOTATED VERSION of your clip board.  If you don't understand this - then I'm satisfied that our readers most certainly WILL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I agree that there is a more robust path through the CSR when in oscillation mode.  However, that current is due to an oscillator that is being powered by the current flow through, and the voltage drop across, the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array. 

Which means what?  Exactly?  Never seen so much twaddle following up on so much twaddle since you lapsed into an analysis of particles that respond to a gravitational field. 

So the AC through the shunt resistor is derived from the net DC through the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs.

?  ??    Still utterly incomprehensible Miles&MilesOffTarget.  Please explain this.

The negative half of the AC cycle times the battery voltage (which is also corrupted)...

LOL.  I want to know about this 'corrupted' voltage.  Do you mean morally?  Or even significantly?   

appears to be power being returned to the battery.  That must be the root cause of the net negative wattage measurements by the scope averaging.  However, when the AC shows negative current, the actual current going through the function generator is almost certainly positive.

LOL.  And you determine this how?  By the waveform across Q1?  Q2?  Or just logically?

It would just have to be verified.

What would need verification?  Your analysis?  Or the waveforms?

The true current waveform powering the circuit is most likely pulsing DC that is almost exclusively unidirectional.  The true voltage powering the circuit is certainly a steady DC without the wide voltage fluctuations shown on the scope capture.  If you could actually capture the correct data, everything would check out.

LOL That would be nice.  I also want to see a steady DC current through Q1 or Q2 either during the on or off time of the duty cycle.  And no doubt - we we could get rid of all measuring instruments - all oscilloscopes - either my own, or TK's - anywhere and everywhere - then we'd be able to surmise that there's indeed a steady DC voltage and that these oscillations are figments of our imagination.

Ultimately, as has been mentioned several times before, this is an example of garbage-in garbage-out.

INDEED.  This is post of yours MileHigh is a PERFECT example of garbage - IN OR OUT.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

Please, let's focus...

Do you agree that the voltage indicated by channel three in the scope shots depicts the voltage applied to the gate of Q1?

Do you agree that any positive voltage of +5 volts or greater applied to the gate of Q1 as indicated by the channel 3 in the scope shots should cause Q1 to turn on?

Why does Test 2/ FIG 5 indicate that Q1 is functioning correctly and as expected while Test 1/FIG 3 and Test 3/FIG 6 indicate that Q1 is not functioning correctly?

I would appreciate any answers you can give to these three questions.

PW

[evolvingape]

@PW

With respect to possible blown MOSFETs see post #461:

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/461/

added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.  « Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »