another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So it needs a new documentation with precise measurement protocols.

WHY?  They do not form any part of the required range of results required for our paper.  They were ONLY done to obviate complaints against grounding issues.

Also you need to disconnect all grounded scopes from the circuit during the longer tests as this could also have this ground current loop problem.

Not actually.  Also explained in that reference.  Please read it.

Also you need to probe the batteries before and after with a battery capacity meter to see their charge status.

Had we taken the trouble to do this - then we would NOT have been able to include this in our paper as a Professor Jandrell from WITS university advised us that ANY evaluation of the battery was IRRELEVANT to the claim.

Please quit posting your old measurement results when the function generator was used as this was enough debunked already.

Stefan - THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT - it is damaging. Do I take it then that you're trying to DISMISS the claims in our paper?  Notwithstanding the fact that we have entirely PROVED every single point that you raise as a possible objection? And if so then WHY?

Regards,
Rosemary[/quote]

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Harti - AGAIN

I am more than happy to do this test provided only that the protocols are approved by a couple of academic experts.  Else any further tests are a waste of time.  We've been at this 'second generation' - so to speak of this circuit for FAR TOO LONG.  I am not doing any more tests.  I'm of the opinion - with respect - that it would not make an iota of difference and it would be demanded of me that I can run around in circles addressing whatever whimsical requirement occurs to you all.  And it's not as if these tests are requested.  You seem to think that you can demand them.  The onus is on me and me only - to prove these claims under definitive conditions.  We have done this except for the final battery draw down test.  I'm more than happy to do this.  But ONLY if it CAN be considered definitive.  I would have thought that Professor Jones would easily find the required expertise to get this endorsement.

Regards,
Rosemary

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.    Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.


I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Poynty point.  DELIGHTED to see that you're actually doing a replication?  Is that what you're showing?  You need to tell us how you're going to determine the optimum settings required.  I'm afraid it's NOT possible without access to those scopes that can do math trace.  Else you'll spend an awfully long time trying to find the required settings.

Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Not a replication of hardware, rather I'll be replicating your wave forms and measurements with my own circuit, which has already been published on this forum.

The scope is not a problem, I'll be using my own most likely.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - I have been assured that there's always a marginal drop in voltage across a capacitor when it's disconnected from its charge source.  Is that what you're relying on?  Which makes which of the two us 'morally bankrupt'?

And you need to substantiate your claim that a battery can discharge current through any transistor at all without passing through its source leg.  Alternatively IF the discharge is through the source leg of Q2 to the Gate of Q1 - then you also need to argue how it IGNORES the negative charge applied to the Gate of Q1. 

Don't repeat your claim.  Argue it.  Otherwise you have NO credibility with this claim of yours that the battery is discharging through it's Q2's source leg to the gate of Q1.  And it really doesn't matter how indignant you pretend to be when you 'claim' that this happens - IT SIMPLY DOES NOT.  It CANNOT.  Unless it can bypass Q1 which is where the signal probe is sitting.  And that applied signal is NEGATIVE.

Regards,
Rosemary