another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Poynty Point,

Here's the thing.  You need to somehow explain how the battery voltage is wrong.  No good saying that the wires are skewing the results.  The simple fact is that I could have an absurd length of upwards of 20 meters of heavy duty wire leading from that battery to some circuit apparatus - AND STILL THOSE SCOPES WOULD MEASURE THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ACCURATELY.   I can apply a switching circuit at the end of that >20 meters - AND apply a really fast switching frequency.  But provided that frequency is within the scopes broadband width - it's fine.  And those scopes deal with frequencies at mega hertz.  Nothing like the speed of that oscillation.   And even with an impedance from HELL - STILL THOSE SCOPES WOULD MEASURE THE VOLTAGE ACCURATELY.  AND it would accurately show the that waveform - regardless of its complexity.  I may not get much amperage through that wire - and the further from the appliance then the greater restriction to that flow of current.  If there are spikes - it'll show those spikes.  But it will always give PRECISELY the correct waveform across that battery, or THOSE batteries, whatever.  And that scope will give PRECISELY the correct voltage.  IMPEDANCE DOES NOTHING to the voltage that is measured as potential difference from the supply.  When impedance kicks in is when you compute the AMPERAGE based on a measured voltage.  Why do you not know this?  It's elementary.

QUITE APART FROM WHICH - because you went on and on about this being the REASON  our battery voltage is being DISTORTED - I went to some considerable trouble to apply the probes across two batteries in series with their terminals positioned that the scope probe could reach DIRECTLY across the positive and negative terminal.  WE GOT PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS.  TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS POSTED ON OUR THREAD.  Then.  One of the collaborators took the trouble to reply to you on your hate blog.  He EXPLAINED that he had done this test on ENTIRELY DIFFERENT APPARATUS USING A 555 switching circuit.  Go back there and see if you can find it.  Posted there on the 10 November 2011.   Your own comments follow hot in that wake.  (Glad to see you've deleted this year's comments BTW (by the way)).  here's that link.  http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/  It begins 'Hey guys, stop stuffing around with blogspots and build this thing, I did and it worked.'  So.  We've tested this on MULTIPLE CIRCUITS using ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOADS - with or without the use of a single battery from our own bank of batteries or even when using other lead acid or alkaline batteries.  And there's one thing that follows as day follows night.  It's THAT OSCILLATION.  And with the required tuning - THAT NEGATIVE WATTAGE NUMBER.

SO.  Kindly REFRAIN from calling me a LIAR.  Or a FRAUD.  Those tests were DONE AND DUSTED.  And you most CERTAINLY were informed about them.  Quite apart from which - it was seriously the most absurd waste of time that anyone of us has ever engaged in.  It was done ENTIRELY to indulge YOU so that you could put your objection to bed.  It is IRRELEVANT.  You don't need our assurances.  You've got the LeCroy instruments that show us what that waveform is doing.  It's all that's needed. 

What I find particularly painful - is the fact that you go to such extraordinary lengths to advise the world and his wife - that I do not understand basic electronics.  And yet this very basic fact related to elementary measurement protocol - COMPLETELY eludes you.  Or does it?  Are you hoping that the readers here will believe you?  Is this part of that disinformation program?  Those are the ONLY 2 options available to explain this Poynty.  Hopefully it's that you really don't understand elementary measurement protocols.  In which case - WHY DO YOU KEEP ADVISING ME THAT I'M IGNORANT?  Shouldn't you, perhaps, take a look in that mirror you're holding up?

And I assure you I am NOT a FRAUD.  I DO NOT LIE ABOUT OUR RESULTS.  I CAN'T.  I'm just not clever enough.  I RELY on the measurements from those instruments.  And frankly - I don't think it would be POSSIBLE to tamper with results from the LeCroy.  What's shown is what the data IS. 

Regards
Rosemary

[woopy]

I all

hope not to disturb

some cents of my experiments

hope this helps

good night bat all

Laurent

http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY

[poynt99]

Laurent,

If and when you are interested in obtaining a similar wave form to Rosemary's let me know. I'm certain I can help you get there.

Do you have a 10 Ohm power resistor? The only other thing you'll need is some wire, a diode (or the other MOSFET you have there), and your signal generator. It's quite simple, and you're almost there already. Also, you'll need to use at least 24V, but it works better with higher voltages. Your supply goes to 60VDC?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I all

hope not to disturb

some cents of my experiments

hope this helps

good night bat all

Laurent

http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY

Many, many thanks for trying this woopy.  I am always bowled over by your videos.  You come across as being the most courteous and kindly of people.  I could learn much from you and intend trying.

I'm not sure why you're not getting that oscillation.  I suspect it's that your Q2S is actually not floating.  You need to make sure that it's not connected to the supply source or Battery negative.  When I get my camera - soon now - I'll post some pictures of this. 

Meanwhile you'd be better advised by Poynty and others.  The feasibility of getting the oscillation is absolutely NOT at question.  It's the analysis of that oscillation that's somewhat fraught.

The very kindest of regards to you woopy.  And many, many thanks for your work.  You have no idea how deeply appreciative I am.  I don't think you could intrude on a discussion - EVER.  You're simply not capable of it.

Rosemary

By the way - woopy.  It's interesting that the LED stays LIT despite that voltage reversal.  It implies that there's a continual steady current.  Which is intriguing.  We found this ourselves when we provided two alternate banks to check if the two lines of LED's would alternate on and off.  We found that only one line stayed lit, and it was steady.  No flickering even.  It was intriguing.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - now, to continue.

I trust that you understand the significance of that oscillation.  It MOST ASSUREDLY applies to the voltage that the oscilloscope is reading.  And PATENTLY it is NOT reading the battery voltage.  We both agree.  The battery CANNOT be discharging virtually its entire capacity at every half swing' of each oscillation.

IF the MOSFETS Q1 and Q2 are always alternately on - in a 'flip flop' condition - then one could claim that therefore there is a path to enable the continuous flow from the battery.  I agree.  BUT.  Then we would also need to prove that there's a path through Q2S or through the Source Leg of Q2s to the common Source Rail or battery negative.  And then too.  If the path was ALWAYS thereby enabled - then it would show us a waveform that steadied at whatever the battery voltage was - save for the occasional spiking at each transition.  In other words if the battery voltage was 12 volts then it would remain at 12 volts and only diminish as it reduced its potential.

And.  Not impedance nor capacitance nor inductance from anywhere on that circuit material - will alter the actual potential difference that the scope meter is reading.  The voltage is what it is.  The computation of AMPERAGE CURRENT FLOW would need to be mathematically adjusted - in line with that measured voltage.  We accommodate that calculation - when we determine the rate of wattage delivered.  And we are always left with a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.

And what that voltage reading is telling us is that - whatever else it is measuring - it is NOT the battery voltage.  Somehow, through the application of a negative signal at the gate of Q1 - the battery voltage reading is replaced by - or becomes the sum of - the energy that is being delivered elsewhere on that circuit.

To resolve this question first requires some analysis of the potential paths that ARE available.  And then an interpretation of current flow in line with the standard model.  This is the thrust of the analysis in our paper.  BECAUSE - the question of available paths is ENTIRELY RESOLVED IF one applies a dual charge potential to the properties of current flow - that is also then consistent with the measured potential difference from the applied voltage.

Please feel free to comment.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.
took out a sentence as it was repetitive