another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OK.  Starting with this post from TK.

(You don't stand a chance, PicoWatt. She has real experts who don't hide behind an internet identity............ but they sure do hide good somehow, because WE HAVE NEVER EVEN ONCE SEEN OR HEARD FROM THEM DIRECTLY, only by reference when Rosie Poser doesn't understand something but wants to pretend she does.)

This has been answered. I have been urgently advised by many of colleagues that it is a waste of time engaging in any discussion on these forums as they're 'toxic'.  I have persisted.  But ONLY because I am entirely satisfied that our readers are considerably more discerning than is assumed.  And I need to ensure that all aspects of this technology are put squarely in the public domain which they now are.  The fact that they're  challenged on such spurious grounds - is immaterial.  They're HERE.  And they're public.  And last but not least.  I see a real requirement to  to advise our members and readers that over unity has most certainly been breached.  That it's denied by these 'big' players is to be expected.  They're actually only big in their investment to DENY over unity.

Now.  Back to TK.  If you're referring to picowatt's explanation as to how to determine the frequency then rest assured.  I am well able to understand picowatt's explanation.  My grandchildren could.  It's a miracle of clarity.  But it has nothing to do with the issue. And I do not need open support from anyone at all.  Unlike you 'big players' - as MileHigh puts it - I trust I am well able to fight my corner.  I must admit that I struggle with the sheer volume of your posts - but I think, on the whole, I'm managing very well.  One doesn't need to be that clever to expose the sheer nonsense arguments that you rely on.  And I rely on you posting that nonsense - so that I can gauge the lengths that you go to to keep denying everything.  And then as ever.  I rely on our readers to see if they can possibly detect any level of impartiality in any of your posts.  God forbid that ever happens.  Because then you'd get some level of credibility.  Anyway.  Ever onwards...

I have - indeed - been ' 'twiddlying' those knobs' - as you put it.  The offset - as applied by the machine - is ONLY based on its reference to zero.  Nothing at all to do with the 'CENTRE GRATICLE LINE' as you put it.  And presumably you mean graticule.  This falls in the same bracket as your insistence on word 'mosfets' when you mean MOSFET's.  And that's NOT a plowman's apostrophe as you put it.  It is simply a correct application of punctuation.  In any event.  That center 'graticule' line is to enable the user to arrange the display of waveforms as required.  One can scroll left or right to include or exclude more or less waveforms.  I'll give you some downloads when this exercise is finished - to show you its actual function.  And the little 'underline marker' that you're referring to against each channel number is the zero crossing line as applied to the DC coupling of that channel.  On an AC coupling then that same line moves to the center of each peak to peak waveform across whatever waveforms were recorded on that screen.  And the bias is determined when there is more voltage calculated above or below that center line.  So when you write this...

TURN ON YOUR SCOPE and see for yourself, Rosemary. You don't even have to try to read and understand the operating manual. It is as easy as powering it up and twiddlying some knobs. The offset value will appear in the box, no matter what waveform or AC-DC coupling or channel impedance or ANYTHING. AND: the offset value will always be equal to the DISTANCE, measured in volts according to the channel's setting, from the SCREEN CENTER GRATICLE LINE, to the little underline marker under the channel number displayed at screen left. WHETHER THERE IS A SIGNAL DISPLAYED OR NOT.

... then you are displaying a level of ignorance that is abysmal or a level of misdirection that is obscene.  Take your pick.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Poser
edited
changed move to 'more'

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Your full of shit Rosemary!

I am asking you who your experts are, my name is Robert Mason, as you very well know and have always known.

I SAY YOUR EXPERTS DO NOT EXIST!

I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason.  I'm impressed that you disclose this.  Thank you.  And I apologise if I should have known this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.

TK.  The early and sincere effort of one of my colleagues to address your 'type' was attempted on that hate blog that's dedicated to me.  The response was that loaded with slander and invective that we all concurred.  Better to stay out of it.  Lest anyone's identity be associated with that or indeed - THIS level of engagement.  It's a decision that I ACTIVELY promoted.  And you CITE nothing.  Your continually refer to distortions in a program of disinformation - that is also ENTIRELY belied by its excess. 

Regards to you TinselKoala

Rosie Pose

[evolvingape]

I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason.  I'm impressed that you disclose this.  Thank you.  And I apologise if I should have known this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ok Rosemary,

I will leave you alone from now on.

There is nothing more to be said.

RM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This post is GOLD

Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.

One would need to be an amateur of dimensions that even I exceed TinselKoala - let alone an 'expert' such as you proclaim to be - to analyse power dissipation against a waveform.  There is invariably some level of phase shift.  And being inductive it's impedance will vary.  Both need to be factored into any power integration and it's complex and fraught with required error margins.  Far better to establish it's dissipation levels empirically.  As we do.  Therefore, indeed, there has NEVER been any waveform downloads taken across the load resistor.  Our protocols OBVIATE the need.  WHY do you not know this?  Aren't you the self declared EXPERT?  One of the 'BIG" boys?  And then.  Back to my question.  HOW do you manage to show us a waveform across the resistor that is perfectly in phase? What's the 'trick'?  TK?  Where do you manage to misrepresent SO much?  Is it all in that 'dark' light? 

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.

This I cannot explain other than my personal preference to 'fight this fight' alone.  You see it shows you up better - as the bully that you are.  I enjoy knowing that I - as a rather forgetful and somewhat senile member of the opposite sex - am yet able to fend off your 'incursions' with considerably more skill than you can manage.  You SHOUT.  I DON'T.  You need to SHOUT.  I have no such need.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.

I trust that as soon as I have Harti's 'go ahead' to start a new moderated thread - then I will be able to disclose all the authorities that are required.

Kindest regards to you again TK.  Your contributions, as ever, are invaluable.
Rosie Poser