another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

I count! Rosemary said I count (at least I used to count...)!! I still read the thread, I just don't comment. I did get a scope but it doesn't have a 'math' feature and I still don't have a function generator so I don't have the basic requirements for building Rosemary's circuit... I'm guessing that 15Mhz is too slow to see what you're seeing? I still would build it if I could...
PC

Your 15MHz scope should be sufficient to see the ~ 1.5MHz oscillation.

[poynt99]

Back to your proposals here Poynty Point,Frankly I'd be more than happy to settle for any proposals at all that are made by Wilby.  And I've effectively structured the entire test around the proposals made by Magsy.  Stefan's only concern is with the use of the function generator.  And since his concerns here relate to the grounding issues - we can obviate this very easily - as I explained.  Gyuala is a latecomer to the arguments but I'm also happy with his input.  And indeed with any proposal made by anyone at all.  Provided only that they relate to our circuit and the apparatus detailed in our paper.  And that the proposals are reasonable or doable within the constraints of the equipment that we can access.

I've asked both Wilby and Magluvin via PM. Wilby replied "been to that vietnam... not going back.", which I assume means he's not interested, and Magluvin replied that he would "think on it".

I've proposed an alternative test that I believe is a far better approach than the battery drawdown tests, for several reasons. You're not willing to entertain this idea, and there has been no feedback from anyone else reading/posting here, neither on the drawdown test, the open source idea, nor my proposed test, so it would seem folks are apathetic about the whole thing in my best estimation. So it will be the same course as before. Steady as she goes.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I've asked both Wilby and Magluvin via PM. Wilby replied "been to that vietnam... not going back.", which I assume means he's not interested, and Magluvin replied that he would "think on it".

I've proposed an alternative test that I believe is a far better approach than the battery drawdown tests, for several reasons. You're not willing to entertain this idea, and there has been no feedback from anyone else reading/posting here, neither on the drawdown test, the open source idea, nor my proposed test, so it would seem folks are apathetic about the whole thing in my best estimation. So it will be the same course as before. Steady as she goes.

Ok.  Then I propose that we leave it as is.  The battery draw down test is cumbersome.  But it's definitive.  I'll set to and see what I can manage.  There's a lot of work required.  And frankly I prefer it because it's the one that we initially used for BP.  The downside was that the data was required to be left out of that Quantum paper - for reasons better understood by Professor Jandrell.  He did - nonetheless explain it as being extraneous to the experiment under review.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

SO  AGAIN.  Here's the proposed with the omission of the 555 test as we'll be using an ungrounded plug for the function generator.

. We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
. Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Allow me to slightly re-format your complete test protocol for better reference. Then I'll address certain points.



1) We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation.

1.1) The same test must also show a negative wattage in the computation of energy delivered by the battery.

1.2) The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required.

2) We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.

3) Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.

4) Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.

5) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

6) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.

7) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.

8] We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries on the control and the experiment - continuously.

9) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.

10) We then recharge all those batteries.

11) We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.

12) We re-run those tests. This to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.