another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I am not as smart in electronics as you and some of the others, but I remain cautiously optimistic about the circuit and think you deserve the full opportunity to prove it.  I think you are very close, but my layman math arrived at a slightly different formula.  But I am just a layman here, so I could be wrong.  I was just going by what I have studied on the internet.
So I hope to be pro en wrong and look forward to seeing your self running circuit.  Once you get it to self-power, all these people will shut up, I promise you.

I very much look forward to your finished product.

Well that's fair.  Thanks.  But there are subtleties at play here eatenbyagrue.  You are expecting something to self-power?  Not sure what you mean.  We certainly need the battery voltage potential but from what we see - we actually never access it's current.  I have no idea how this is likely to impact on an battery draw down test - only because we've never seen any battery drawn down.  One of my colleagues has certainly done a replication where there was a reduction in battery voltage.  But he did his setting 'blind' and when we tested this on the LeCroy - it was NOT actually set at that negative wattage number.  So.  There's magic in that resonance - but it needs to be combined with some optimisation of the actual applied duty cycle and switching frequency.

I would be very reluctant to assert this claim without the evidence of the battery outperforming it's watt hour rating.  You must remember that we've had these batteries now for more than 2 years - and have used them continuously for 18 months on various tests on virtually, a daily basis.  And in all that time we have not even had a single drop in voltage over these 6 batteries.  Two of them were taken out of the equation because they caught fire and needed recharging.  But we've not touched this remaining six with a recharger.  Ever.  And their voltage is EXACTLY where it was when we took delivery.  In any event.  As Poynty has pointed out.  This needs to be tested.  The sooner the better.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

May I add it would be much sooner if I was not required to defend my back from this 'troll attack from hell'.

[MileHigh]

Rosie Posie,

You have gone from LOL's to a passive disinterested deadpan delivery.  Same difference, you are nervous and uncomfortable.  It's all just a tit-for-tat game you are playing right now.

The only thing that matters is the truth.  You deny all attempts to arrive at the truth with the one exception of the battery draw-down test.  So it would seem that we have to rely on you and whomever it is that's going to assist you to do the draw-down test?

Certainly you are not capable of doing it yourself.  If you are going to rely on the same team, Team Ainslie-Buffoon, then I have very little hope that it will ever get done properly.  The current loop in your nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs does indeed flow straight through the function generator when the output waveform is negatively offset, I assure you.

Remember, you had a freak-out when Poynt asked you to analyze a circuit consisting of a battery connected to a single resistor.  What chance do you have to do a draw-down test and analyze that?

Rosie Posie's Flying Circus.

MileHigh

[fuzzytomcat]

so Guys,

This is how these threads of mine trend.  For some reason Tinsel Koala, Powercat, MileHigh, Glen Lettenmaier - and sundry - are free to entirely misrepresent our circuit - our claim - our waveforms - anything they choose, without any kind of accountability at all.  If TK were obliged to show his identity then he would be considerably more cautious as he would then know he could be held accountable.  Glen I'm not concerned with.  He is - self-evidently - utterly unprincipled and - by rights - should not be allowed on any self respecting forum.  His flagrant breach of confidential information and the level of his sad attempts at traducement are that excessive that they're positively vulgar.  But please note.  Harti is positively encouraging this.  And that is something that I cannot wrap my mind around.  One would have thought he'd allow any claim a fair chance.  As it is I would be grossly embarrassed to refer any academic to this thread - where I'm soliciting their involvement.  I suspect that Harti's fully aware of this.  And I'm inclined to suspect that's precisely why he allows this.

I'm afraid that Harti will be obliged to lock this thread and I suspect that is precisely why he's encouraged this troll attack.  You must all of you draw what conclusions you may.  Bear in mind that he took Glen Lettenmaier off moderation precisely to encourage this.  And strangely - he also then invited MileHigh to join in.  Both have long been antagonists of this technology.  This is all way past acceptable.  I can only conclude that they'll persist in this abuse in order to get this thread locked.  And all this in order to prevent our definitive draw down test.  Then in due course I'll be invited back.  And the same will occur.  What they cannot tolerate is to give a fair chance for some really interesting technology to ever see the light of day. 

SO.  For the record.  We are more than happy to engage in a definitive draw down test that will conclusively prove the anomalies related to our circuit.  And we strongly anticipate that the evidence will conform to the measurements over our circuit as detailed in both our papers.  And unless I am given some reasonable chance to do that demonstration - then our trolls have won.  And that with Harti's active assistance.  Go figger.

What these trolls are attempting - with some considerable efficiency - is to prevent that demonstration from being held on these forums.  It will be way too definitive for their comfort - where the obvious intention is to frustrate experimental proof and rely on allegation, allusion, insinuation, or just plain traducement to win their argument.  Which goes to show.  Over unity is not to be defeated by intelligent argument - or even by experimental proof - but simply by sheer force of opinion.  What is particularly galling is that everyone will then assume - as ever - that over unity has not been proved.  It most certainly has been.  It's just that Harti seems anxious to keep that knowledge away from this thread. Else why would he allow this flagrant abuse of forum guidelines.  I ask you?

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi guests and members,

As you can see the delusional mind of Rosemary's so deranged, and disturbed not one person comes to her defense ..... NO ONE !!

There is not one academic, engineer or someone involved in any of her projects that's been around not one comes to her defense.

The only ones from here are those whom have never tried to make a "magical" Rosemary device ..... possibly even Rosemary posing as someone else here at OU as she did in a previous thread as "Doozie" from what I remember.

These threads go on and on with her BS for at least 120 pages or more and if everyone is tired of this like most of us here please e-mail Stefan the owner and moderator at  hartiberlin@googlemail.com



FuzzyTomCat



Other members may want to add Stefan's e-mail address in the body of their posts ...... "stop the madness"

[Rosemary Ainslie]

That's more like it MileHigh.  Better prose, more adventurous insights, more subtle innuendos.  Now.  Do that analysis.  Let's see your explanation.  Even if you're claiming the current comes from the function generator.  Remember to apply the known resistances.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Rosie Posie,

You have gone from LOL's to a passive disinterested deadpan delivery.  Same difference, you are nervous and uncomfortable.  It's all just a tit-for-tat game you are playing right now.

The only thing that matters is the truth.  You deny all attempts to arrive at the truth with the one exception of the battery draw-down test.  So it would seem that we have to rely on you and whomever it is that's going to assist you to do the draw-down test?

Certainly you are not capable of doing it yourself.  If you are going to rely on the same team, Team Ainslie-Buffoon, then I have very little hope that it will ever get done properly.  The current loop in your nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs does indeed flow straight through the function generator when the output waveform is negatively offset, I assure you.

Remember, you had a freak-out when Poynt asked you to analyze a circuit consisting of a battery connected to a single resistor.  What chance do you have to do a draw-down test and analyze that?

Rosie Posie's Flying Circus.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Well, when the electrons hit the fan everybody psych yourself up for about a week's worth of profuse apologies and digital sniffles and tears from Rosie Posie.  There was an incident like that about two years ago, I think it had to do with whether or not there was a diode in the original circuit.

Rosie will swoon when the truth comes out and the tears will flow and flow in a giant burst of under unity in all it's glory.  You will all be smothered in apologies and apologies and apologies and then we can all collectively mourn the end of the era of delicious oscillations.

Next stop Sterling Allen!  lol