another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

Picowatt - I am delighted that you're preparing to investigate this for yourself as, from what I've read,  I'm inclined to trust to your impartiality and expertise.  You really do not need 20 of those IRFPG50's - but possibly 5.  In any event - that's your choice.

Provided only that you have some kind of 'offset' function on your signal generator - then you'll be able to understand how it is that we 'block' the flow of current during the period when there's voltage applied to the gate of Q1 or anywhere at all.  I have always understood that this is well known as we also used it in the application of our earlier circuit variation - albeit without the same range of efficiency that our function generator offers.  The function generator also offers a wider choice of duty cycle settings which - at it's outside extreme can switch every 3 minutes.  This is useful.

Test 1 - figure 3 - depends on the widest duty cycle setting possible - and the explanation for this, as detailed in the 2nd part of that two part paper - depends on the fact that no current is delivered by the battery but that the circuit components do have a transfer of the potential difference from the battery supply.  Then the only other variation from any standard models at all - is the proposal that current flow actually comprises a 'charge' which can only be valid if there is some particle related to this.  And we propose that this is indeed there  - in any magnetic field.  The effect is fully qualified if the particle is a tachyon - velocity of 2C - with a dual charge rather than a neutral charge.  That's broadly described in that second part of that paper.

Kindest regards again,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

@picowatt: I am glad that someone is going to build the actual circuit, besides me ... and I've built ALL of the various variations discussed here. I hope you are aware of the Tar Baby thread and all the testing I've done there.

Could you give us a rundown on the equipment you intend to use? What do you think of the proposed "dim bulb" test for Ainslie's claims? Why do you think she isn't just rushing to get it or some other good test done, and end all this useless debate?

I would be especially interested to know if you find any significant differences between the IRFPG50's performance in the circuit (whichever one you might choose to use) and the IRF830a's performance.

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

It is also a truth that when the scope shots indicate that the gate voltage applied to Q1 is positive, Q1 should turn on.

As the inventor and claimant, I would think this simple fact would merit more discussion from you than the answers given.  I am not discussing your claim, the oscillations, the battery charging, or anything nearly that "complex".  I am for now only simply focused on why Q1 turns on properly in one of three tests and not two others.

The simple fact is that the scope shots are saying that in Test 1 and Test 3 the gate drive indicated is more than sufficient to turn on Q1.  The Rshunt channel is showing that Q1 is not turning on.  This cannot be.

I am not trying to debunk anything, I am trying to read your paper.  Schematics and scope shots are read by the likes of me as is text by most everyone.

The only possible explanation I can arrive at as to why Q1 is not turning on, if the schematic and scope shots are indeed correct, is that Q1 is defective or has been inadvertantly disconnected during the two tests in question.

If you have another explanation, I would like to hear it.

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@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.

My dear TinselKoala
I do not need your permission to test.  Nor do I need to use your test parameters.  My only concern is that I'd be anxious to not only see the conclusion to your test but some evidence that you've EVER actually tested our circuit.  And then I'd like to have some kind of access to this 'report' that you tell us has been made available?  Could you provide a link?

Regards,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

The effect is fully qualified if the particle is a tachyon - velocity of 2C - with a dual charge rather than a neutral charge.  That's broadly described in that second part of that paper.

Look out, picowatt... she's about to explain why her "thesis" is superior to QED.