another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Hoptoad,

Thanks for the update.  I'm actually acutely aware of your skills in this subject - and am sorry you're not able to assemble this apparatus.  We're all the losers - sadly. 

But thanks for trying.  And you're right about the value of those body diodes.  We've actually run a circuit on one of those really slow relay switches - and used a diode across the load to take the energy back to the supply.  Intriguing results - that were also certified by South African Bureau of Standards.  But then we were dealing with fractions of a watt - which always becomes a contestable result.  With good reason.

But interesting nonetheless.  I get it you're chemist?  Am I right?  Either way - I found your comments related to cold fusion very interesting indeed.  It's an opinion that I share - but has not been taken up by our members.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.
Sorry I wrote body diode.  Getting way too old here hoptoad.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemaru Ains-lie: Your idiot abject apology is not accepted. You continue to be a dolt. I explained in exquisite detail WHEN IT FIRST CAME UP just exactly why and how your calculation was wrong. MANY DAYS AGO. Somebody you trust has apparently finally explained your UNTENABLE POSITION re that calculation, fine. But you are not just a "factor of 60 out". You also ADD THE SAME QUANTITY OF ENERGY TWICE in that calculation.

Now..... let's get to some other points that I've made that you deny. What about "PER NEVER MEANS DIVISION"... your claim there has been devastated also, and your "teacher" no doubt has cleared up this little matter, or tried to..... Let's see your apology for that little farce.

But more importantly for this discussion: WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE shown on this scope shot? When are you going to apologize to me for contradicting me on THAT point.... when the presenter, the diagram, the photographs, and the scope trace behaviour ALL AGREE WITH ME.... that the green trace is the COMMON MOSFET DRAINS ??

Come on Ains-lie.... deal with the ISSUES I've raised and REFUTE ME WITH REFERENCES.

WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE?


And... by the way, insulting dolt idiot Ains-lie: I am 72 inches tall, and since there are 12 INCHES PER FOOT, that makes me a bit taller than you, I wager. How tall am I, in feet? How did you arrive at that number? Or, if you prefer metric measurements, you can simply multiply that 72 inch number by 25.4 to get my height in millimeters-- since there are 25.4 millimeters PER inch. Since there are 1000 millimeters PER meter, how tall am I then, in meters? How did you arrive at that number? If you can't do this problem... ask a bright ten-year-old to help you follow through the calculations.

But just what do my height and moustache have to do with anything? Nothing at all... just like you being a feeble and ugly  old woman doesn't have anything to do with your LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS.


REFUTE MY POINTS with data and references, not stupid irrelevant conjectures about my HEIGHT and MOUSTACHE, you miserable old fool.



WHAT IS THE GREEN TRACE??? You've said that it's not the mosfet drains.... so what is it then? Since there are manifestly two scope probes hooked to the common mosfet drains on the board itself.... do those signals just disappear into your rabbit hole? OR ARE THEY IN FACT DISPLAYED ON THE SCOPES SOMEWHERE?

It looks like MH's prediction about you is correct: Your house of cards is beginning to crumble around you, and you are in the "face-saving" mode again, flailing around like a landed fish.


Come on.... I've given you an ILLUSTRATED, 23-point detailed explanation of this scope shot. Take it point by point, and tell me where I am wrong and what is the CORRECT, according to you, interpretation of the 23 points I indicated on the trace.

(See an earlier post of mine for the number captions.)

[TinselKoala]

You talk about my "pages and pages"... but look at what they consist of. No baseless rants or gratuitous references to Hitler, Mussolini or Savonarola from ME, irrelevancies of the lowest order, but rather I am continually ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN AND  SUPPORT your positions re various things you've said and claimed that are contradictory or frankly untrue. Rather than deal with my important points FOR WHICH I ALWAYS GIVE CHECKABLE REFERENCES, you dodge and weave and post PAGES of your own TRULY IRRELEVANT nonsense, while managing not to answer any of my points.

Imagine how much time and effort we could have saved had you CHECKED YOUR MATH when I first brought it up. But no--- with me and at least three other people here TELLING YOU AND SHOWING YOU HOW YOU ARE WRONG you still continued with your insults and lies about that matter until just today. Now you are forced to apologise.... but you still haven't POSTED THE CORRECT CALCULATION OF YOUR OWN, nor have you retracted the claim made from your bogus calculation:

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.

Here is where you add the same energy twice. You are starting here at a temp of 82 degrees, NOT 16 degrees...you have already counted the energy required to go from 16 to 82 in the first part, now you are trying to add it again.

Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.

Correct your calculation, post the corrected figure, and correct the CONCLUSION based on your earlier WRONG CALCULATION.

To do anything else would be a another lie, Rosemary Ains-lie.

You are talking about testing a circuit in this thread. But you have shown OVER AND OVER AGAIN that you are incompetent to carry out or even interpret such a test. You talk about getting "fractions of a watt" from a recirculating diode attached to a relay... but you totally IGNORE the fact that this is COMMON, KNOWN, and most circuits incorporating RELAYS will include such a diode to protect circuitry from these INDUCTIVE COLLAPSE VOLTAGE SPIKES. You may recall--- or not, I don't care--- that I SHOWED THIS EFFECT using your first bogus circuit: when the external diode was PROPERLY APPLIED, one could siphon off energy from the circuit using it and CHARGE UP A CAPACITOR or EXTERNAL (not the running) BATTERIES with it. And since POWER is a RATE of ENERGY USAGE..... I could take all that energy I stored in a capacitor and discharge it QUICKLY... achieving HIGH wattage levels from that energy.

I say again: You have demonstrated that you are incompetent to design, test, build, explain, or evaluate electronic circuitry. The evidence for this incompetence is distributed throughout this thread. You need to prove that you are competent in these areas, or any test that YOU do... just like the video demonstration... will likely be "fraught" with errors and misinterpretations and frank LIES.

Prove that you are competent... or slide on out of the way and let the people who understand what's happening get along and test your circuit, if any of them actually can figure out JUST WHAT is to be tested and JUST WHAT the claims are.

WE STILL DON'T EVEN KNOW THE CORRECT CIRCUIT based on the info from YOU... we've had to figure it out from your video, IN SPITE of the misdirections, mistakes, and lies contained therein.

REFUTE ME, POINT BY POINT... or just take one point--- WITH REFERENCES to actual factual data. Just as in the math case--- you cannot.

[TinselKoala]

@hoptoad:

You have some experience in these matters. I ask you to look at the construction of Rosemary Ains-lie's circuit in the images from their video that FTC and I have posted. Do you see that all the "gang of four" mosfets have their gates, drains and sources hooked up with long clipleads and ALLIGATOR CLIPS clipped to those long threaded rods? What do you think is the likely result of this construction technique?

Also, I'd like to ask you to think about the sequence of events.

Since the presenter is gesturing to the diagram showing the single mosfet circuit, and since he says in the video (with Rosemary Ains-lie present and prompting him) that ALL THE MOSFETS ARE IN PARALLEL....
I think that they thought they WERE using the single-mosfet circuit in their presentation, and did not realize the error until afterwards.

So they are using one "theory" to account for the oscillations in the case they THINK they are describing.... but when critical examination of the video revealed the "error" they come back with the claim or implication that this was DELIBERATE, and they try to work the new circuit (which still looks wrong to me, because of the FG's connection to the circuit) into their conjectural explanation.

What do you think about these events? Did they deliberately lie about the circuit at first... or did they make a STUPID MISTAKE that they then are pretending is deliberate? Or is there some other explanation that does NOT condemn them for incompetence and mendacity? If so I'd be more than glad to hear it.

[TinselKoala]

@eatenbyagrue:

I see that you still choose not to answer my direct and polite (I think) questions, so I'll repeat them yet again:

Is there anything you can find in the statements of fact that I've made that is untrue, incorrect, and/or not supported by or checkable with external references?
Is there anything you can find in the statements of fact that Rosemary Ainslie has made that is untrue, incorrect, and/or not supported by checkable external references?

Just how tall are YOU, anyway, since that seems to be a qualification in Rosemary's eyes.