another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

AGAIN TK.  You are referring to the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  It is not the data that is used in relation to the demonstration.

I think that if you applied yourself you may even understand this.  Or are you simply hoping to confuse our readers?  And your hoping that they're all idiots?

Rosie poser

So you are now claiming that you used a DIFFERENT APPARATUS, not just a different circuit, and you positioned your probes.... where?

If "our readers" are confused.... let's ask them by whom.

[picowatt]

People,

This is getting ugly....

@Rosemary,

OK, I understand we are only to focus on the two papers, correct?

That is what I am trying to do.  I have 20 IRFPG50's on there way here via a slow boat.  I take it replicators are to focus only on the data in the two papers.  That is what I am trying to do.

Once we were all told that all other data only "relates" to your claim (not exactly sure what that means), I switched my focus to the papers.  I began reading the first paper and the scope shots and noted a discrepancy as to the operation of Q1.

Before reviewing the data further, or performing a replication, I would appreciate some explanation as to why Q1 is not performing as it should in Test1 and Test 3.

We can discuss at some point the finer points of Q2-Q5 operation while i noscillation, but surely you and everyone else has a good understanding as to the operation of Q1.

A positive voltage applied to the gate of Q1 equal to or greater than +5 volts should cause Q1 to turn on.  Are we in agreement at least with regard to this point?

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW

Picowatt - it is a truth that this circuit was both developed and demonstrated rather extensively at one of our local colleges.  It had the hands on input and advice from some highly skilled people - but unfortunately none in power engineering.  If there were an explanation then it would, by now, have been to hand.  There was a serious proposal to 'disprove' our claim which will, eventually be required.  And when and if we either get this comprehensively demonstrated with the involvement of academics or alternatively when we get this paper published with review - then I will certainly advance this apparatus to them.

Meanwhile we are relying on the well established scientific protocols that allow a claim to be thoroughly investigated and researched which can only happen with impartial and judicious consideration of the facts that have been put forward.  And with as wide an engagement of replicators - as possible.  We are all well aware of the unfortunate consequences to a debunk as applied to our poor Fleischmann and Pons who were the unhappy victims of some rather excessive denials that have, subsequently, had to be withdrawn.  And while they were the victims - much more seriously compromised were our global interests related to the urgent need for new energy sources.  In the same way TinselKoala and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh have been denying our own claim based on the wrong references and on their badly applied, so called, replications.  TK hasn't even noticed the issues.  If he has he's been to some lengths not to reference them.

And it is absolutely immaterial what their opinion of my abilities are.  I am only anxious to get all our claims thoroughly tested and demonstrated and proven.  But then I rely on some attention to our actual claim and not the assumptions related to our claim.  As that would, indeed, be a waste of everyone's time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

At this point I can't really be bothered to respond in detail to your last two postings to me.  When you get high-strung in your responses and start accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about it's a sure sign that you are totally stressed out over your proposition.

Everything I said I stand by.  Your histrionics in your postings to me are rooted in the fact that you can't understand my technical points about your circuit.

I am satisfied that I have proved that you completely pulled the wool over your own eyes and spent months and months analyzing a circuit that in fact was not doing what you thought it was doing.

If I had magically appeared in your lab while your testing was going on it would have taken me a maximum of a few days to understand your circuit,undo all of the false assumptions, and redo the measurements and show you the truth.  You would have been dumbstruck.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@Mags... how long has it been since Rosemary has even _mentioned_ performing a draw-down or Dim Bulb test, other than to say that she won't be doing one as long as there are Trolls on the Internet?

And yet.... whenever I can get away from correcting her mistakes and lies and sheer nonsense, I try to encourage her to TEST.
I have even stated that it's OK for her to use the FG, as long as she is showing a HOT LOAD over 190 degrees C, using a positive going gate pulse as she has shown IN THE PAPERS , in that poorly insulated container, for 48 hours. Then do a simple dim bulb test, not even using any test equipment or anything fancier than a clock and a webcam. She has never said WHY she won't do this simple test.

But we know why.