Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[qiman]

Rosemary really reveals her ignorance once again with that post, and you do too, Aaron, because you should have been able to explain to her what I wrote above. But you don't understand it yourself, clearly, or it would not have been an issue.

And Err-on, you haven't shown your mosfet oscillating. SO why should I?
Especially since I can produce ALL the effects that Rosemary has claimed in her circuit--thus demonstrating that the COP>17 is a logic and math error, not a real overunity measurement.

I'm not interested in following your bogus dog and pony show so haven't kept up on how you are misusing your equipment so there is nothing for me to explain to Rosemary.

You can't hide behind that mustache all your life. You obviously have zero confidence in anything you are doing and because you think you are anonymous, anything you post is irrelevant to this entire project.

Be a man tk and put your real name on your work here. Otherwise, it is meaningless garbage.

[TinselKoala]

@0c: Well, I solved that problem and several others and am on still another one. But you can disregard the errrs in the PM, got that sorted.
More later. Good night.

[0c]

@0c: Well, I solved that problem and several others and am on still another one. But you can disregard the errrs in the PM, got that sorted.
More later. Good night.

Tried to PM you here, but it wouldn't work for me. Check your youtube PMs.

[qiman]

From Rosemary:

Have read up and am amazed at the sampling ability of the LeCroy. My concern is that you're applying your own computations to that data. Especially as it relates to the DC average.

I can live with the fact that readings aren't simultaneous. I now understand that point. Thank you.

Now TK. We will need to see the actual software relating to your computations - if you don't mind. Alternatively just hook the FLUKE 123 probes across the shunt and SHOW US the DC average. The sample range is not as broad but it has the real advantage of giving an IMMEDIATE voltage value. (emphasis is not shouting - just intended for emphasis) within a reasonable level of margin for error.

The logic applied for the computation of energy delivered is definitely a 'nested if'. If below zero - subtract - from previous'. You get the picture? Again - back to the Fluke. It has the advantage of being able to deduct the one voltage from the other and give the difference. We can then apply our own math. So. My question. Why are you ignoring the use of that little instrument? I cannot understand it.

And please attend to OC's PM on your youtube. If it's what I suspect - it may be that you have to adjust the conclusions from that sad display of mental arithmetic.

And could you please address the fact that the 'recharge' may, indeed, be a recharge cycle. The more so as it self-evidently IS. Comments such as 'doesn't mean it is recharging - mind' - could otherwise indicate a preference and a bias.

It's really hard to keep up with your duplicity TK - the more so as I'm constrained by that stupidity and lack of technical know how which you gratuitously bring to everyone's attention.

[TinselKoala]

One of the stored traces used on the LeCroy is the voltage across the current-viewing shunt, Rosemary, your Point B. Are you being deliberately dense?

Rosemary, the math that I showed on the LeCroy is what you are trying to explain, and sadly, if you had just stayed in school long enough to learn what "integration" means, you would know this. I'm not applying "my own math" to anything. The oscilloscope is doing the computation.

The process of integration, which is the mathematical computation of the AREA UNDER A WAVEFORM, takes into account the positive area (above zero, going one way) and the negative area (below zero, going the other way) of the power waveform to give the total energy flow. You have tried to describe this process in your primitive way many times apparently without realizing you are describing a standard procedure and one that is well understood--integration.

The logic applied for the computation of energy delivered is definitely a 'nested if'. If below zero - subtract - from previous'. You get the picture? Again - back to the Fluke. It has the advantage of being able to deduct the one voltage from the other and give the difference. We can then apply our own math. So. My question. Why are you ignoring the use of that little instrument? I cannot understand it.

That's right, you cannot understand it. The little Fluke cannot do the integration; the operation must be done on the power waveform NOT on either the voltage or the current waveform individually. That is another error you seem to be making. The voltage and current must be multiplied together first, THEN the integration is done. If you are doing it on the voltage first, you are making another error.

I am tired of your accusing me of duplicity and stupidity, while in the same breath you yourself are exhibiting the highest degree of both.

You have a lot of gall to ask ME for computations, when I have been asking YOU for YOURS for six weeks now.

Especially since all my work is shown, in my posts here and in my videos.

My work is transparent. My circuits are published. My scope shots are real and repeatable and give actual information. Anyone can repeat my work.

Why can't anyone repeat yours?

My circuit is as nearly exactly the same as yours as I can humanly make it. I am measuring it where you say to measure it.

AND I HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME OBJECTIVE RESULTS YOU HAVE GOTTEN.

The difference is that I understand how properly to compute the energy balance, and you do not.