another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[picowatt]

@Rosemary,

It seems a bit of a contradiction that you dismiss all of TK's efforts as meaningless and deceptive, but then reference his work regarding the operation of the two schematics with the MOSFET's labeled differently as proof that it does not matter how it is labeled. 

Am I correct in thinking that Q1 is the single MOSFET and Q2 (or Q2-5) are the paralleled array?

I glanced at the second paper and thought it was describing an alternate circuit set-up.  Please confirm that the Fig 1 schematic in the first paper (Experimental Evidence...) is indeed the correct schematic.

PW

[poynt99]

PW,

From Rosemary's response to my post, I'd say yes, the correct diagram is the one shown in the first paper "ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf".

As such, I agree that the CSR would normally indicate a current with the high Q1 Gate voltage shown in the scope trace.

.99

[poynt99]

FTC,

In terms of saving threads in PDF format, you simply use your browser to "print to PDF". Of course you need some PDF program installed, such as PDF Creator to do so. Also, you need to do this for every single page of the thread, so you would end up spending some time on this and merging a number of pdf files afterwards.

The job would be made a little easier if you go to your profile settings, Look and Layout, and set your "posts per page" to 50.


.99

[picowatt]

.99,

Thanks for the confirmation regarding the correct schematic.  That has been my assumption.

I don't know what else to say regarding the operation of Q1 in Test 1 and 3 other than Q1 must have been defective or somehow disconnected in those two tests.  I can see no alternate explanation (assuming the schematic and scope connections are correct).

Depending on the condition of Ciss/Coss and the body diode, a defective Q1, as in open circuit, might have only minimal impact on the oscillation phase when Q2 is biased on by the FG.  It does, however, cause one to question the accuracy of the additional data provided.   

Are you still planning on a replication of sorts?

PW

[powercat]

Hello powercat

Always nice to be reminded how anxious you are to get us to prove our battery draw down tests.  Believe me so am I.  But I think we should dedicate this thread to an exercise in 'trollmanship' as applied to those such as yourselves.  My prize would be to see it include some actual raw data from TK's DEBUNK courtesy his Tar Baby.  Sorely lacking.  All we have are a series of claims about how he has done this - through twenty video downloads and a report.  Or it may be 20 pages of report and video downloads.  The report is not available...YET - as TK puts it.  Hopefully it will be - in the fullness of time.  Otherwise I may post my results and TK will come in from the rear and CLAIM that they're incorrect as he can't duplicate them.  That would be a shame.  Let me - at its least - have the benefit of seeing where the bar is set.  Then I'll have a 'target'.  And if that means that TK qualifies for Poynty's over unity prize - in his name or in Humbugger's name - and we don't - then so be it.

And I think it's long overdue that the full force of the troll technique be entirely exposed.  Otherwise it can be used again and again.  And that would not be in the interests of progressing over unity or new energy or anything at all through open source.  I'm rather committed to the fond belief that this is still not only possible - but very desirable.  Open source is certainly our only voice for progressing a science that has been widely branded 'pathological'.  Our media wont touch this with yours.  And even a small voice is better than no voice at all.  Else we'll all, forever, be at the mercy of handful of objectors who have an easy time of it when they decide to dismiss scientific evidence.  Thus far they've managed this very well.  And the losers here include the public in it's widest and global sense of the word.  And that probably includes you too. 

Unless - God forbid - he's actually trying to imply that we have NOT got COP infinity.  Or indeed - any efficiency at all.  Not sure what he's claiming.  Not ... yet. Golly.   

Rosie Pose

Interesting how you're attacking the majority of people who post here and calling them trolls, when you are the one wasting everybody's time with your BS claims and avoiding doing any new tests.

In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.