another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

I find it particularly insulting that she thinks dirty hands are something to be ashamed of. I wonder how she treats her car mechanics, her elevator repairmen, the technicians that maintain her plumbing, her aircraft, her garden...... All this from the Red Queen, sitting secure in her manicured home in a gated community, having everybody else do her dirty work for her.
Ah... how I long for the French Revolution. Ainslie reminds me a lot of Marie Antoinette.

[TinselKoala]

And one more before I walk the "other bitch" Maggie.

The inline ammeter that I use here is a 3-dollar special. I am not about to expose my Fluke 83 or my Simpson 464 to this nonsense circuit until I have full understanding of it.

Everyone but RA has noticed that I make a distinction between "precision" and "accuracy", and I generally do not say "the current through the unit is 320 mA" but rather I say "the inline ammeter reads 320 mA".... a very different statement altogether, and those in the know understand the difference.

For the same settings and arrangements and knobs and voltages, the inline ammeter gives consistent readings. This means that it is "precise". It could be telling me the wrong answer, though--- in other words it could be PRECISE without being ACCURATE. Precision is easy. Accuracy is another thing altogether, and it requires making the same measurement BY DIFFERENT METHODS, in other words, "calibration" to standards. I do not pretend, nor ever have pretended, that the DMM is ACCURATE, only that it is relatively precise.

The Ainslie NERD team measurements are precise. That's what DSOs are for. The Ainslie NERD team measurements are not accurate, though, and hooking up two oscilloscopes in strict parallel is NOT "calibration" to standards of accuracy. That's what a brain is for.... and that's what was left out of the Ainslie "experiments".

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and guests,

Again we have Rosemary totally unaware of the posting or was it a choice Rosemary made on ignoring the posting that's been asked now the third time and posting it's been answered ?

This important "fact" of which schematics were "EVER" used and documented in any testing and evaluation that needs clarification from the "INVENTOR" of the COP>INFINITY device.

The ramifications if this schematic ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) was used and misrepresented as "NOT" being used for testing and evaluation of any high inductive resistor heating loads over 6 amps it wouldn't be professional although at this point does your reputation Rosemary matter it's fairly well been discredited now anyway.

If there is any error it needs to be corrected there cannot be replicators and verifiers assumptions always made because "YOU" Rosemary refuse to answer any questions that may discredit your unproven "Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing" standard model "THESIS" that only you understand, always tied some how to all your unproven COP>INFINITY device(s).

FTC

Well guys - that's it.  A mere 33 posts yesterday - and all answered.  Not bad going for the 'frail and elderly' - all things considered.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318062/#msg318062        Reply #1911 on: April 07, 2012, 10:45:26 AM

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ??   

Is that "ONE" question to hard now .... 

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC
 

[TinselKoala]

Damn. Not another "official" schematic controversy.

I sure wish Rosemary would just come right out and say, "Schematic X is the right one, Schematic Y was a typo and I'm now correcting it in every copy of the papers posted along with a note of retraction, and Schematic Z, which TK uses, is.... er..... um....... just like mine except for the 555 timer instead of the FG therefore TK is Torquemada."

But we all know that she will just fill another page or two with self-bloviating, and refuse to acknowledge the real issues.

Here, NERDs... I give you this for nothing, because that's exactly what it's worth.

[MileHigh]

All:

I think we need a breather and we need to tone down the rhetoric.  Any progress will require compromise on both sides.

Certainly it's fairly easy to identify one problem and it's a problem that has been ongoing from just about the very beginning.  The problem is this willful ignoring of basic technical concepts and facts by Rosemary.

Take the example of the issue of if current can actually flow through the function generator or not.  It's obvious that Rosemary has been ignoring this fact for a long time and she is just pushing on anyways and turning a deaf ear.

Rosemary, this has to stop.  The way to go forward is to learn and understand.

Put it this way:  If you willfully ignore that current can go through the function generator, then how does the current flow?  You talk about your mastery of writing and language, but when it comes to talking about current flow you can't string six words together that make sense.  That is a fact and the way to try to resolve this is to put a sincere effort into trying to learn.  There is no reason that you can't come to understand how the current flows through the function generator and there is no reason that you can't learn how to articulate that properly.

So I propose that whenever we come to one of these impasses that you engage and try to learn and then we move on.  We never hear the words "can you please help me understand this" from you and it's about time you start.

You are dealing with experts and it's about time you acknowledge this.  We all have our limitations, for example I am not an expert in MOSFETs and you can tell by my lack of familiarity with the proper technical terms.  It's been 21 years since I worked on a bench and when I did I worked in digital logic design.  I know that I am slipping, it has been so long.  I can still read a MOSFET spec sheet though and understand it.  I simply don't have any real-word design experience with MOSFETs.  But in other areas I am an expert.  There are clearly some MOSFET experts here, that's for sure.

So no more of this willfully ignoring basic electronics and circuit concepts.  It's completely unacceptable.  Current can flow through the function generator.  All that you have to do is ask questions and try to learn.  You have to read the Agilent white paper and try to understand it.  Ask questions if you don't understand it.

On the other side it's time to stop the gratuitous bashing which tends to come in waves.  Sometimes it's emotionally draining to read.  Most of us are guilty and it can get too nasty.  You have to think MLK.

So that's it.  In my opinion, if this going to go anywhere, then no more willful ignoring and no more gratuitous bashing would be a good start.

MileHigh