Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Started by TinselKoala, June 16, 2009, 09:52:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 39 Guests are viewing this topic.

TinselKoala

@0c: Check your PMs, I sent the errors for your amusement.
Thanks royally.
--TK

qiman

From Rosemary:
Guys - I've just watched yet another sad attempt at TK trying to apply power analysis to my circuit - two efforts on youtube, both using a LeCroy. He's using a machine which, by his own acknowledgement has the dc off set on the blink. Any analysis after this point is entirely erroneous. Please disregard any numbers at all that he references in either of the two videos. The wattage analysis function that he's employed relates to the product of the entire waveform. It is not able to determine the returning energy that is evident in voltage across the shunt and across the battery.

Also. There is clear evidence of aliasing - and he does not have enough samples to draw an analysis. He does not have a periodic waveform and is trying to draw conclusions from a ridiculously small sample range. If there were any validity in his claim he should be able to point to the dump with the numbers that determine the voltage across the shunt. He can't do this because DC coupling on the LeCroy is broken! For goodness sake.

Quite apart from which I suggest he brush up on his mental arthimetic. It's sadder than this new attempt at debunking. What qualifications does this man have? I'm an amateur and can see through this nonsense? Why .99 are you not poynting this out? And Hoppy? And MileHigh? Why do I need to do this? Where is the impartiality of our mainstream scientists?

ps. from me - your recommended Mosfet is AVALANCHE PROOF ensuring that it cannot ever go into oscillation. Good recommendation on the diode though :)

0c

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 31, 2009, 08:15:11 PM
@0c: Check your PMs, I sent the errors for your amusement.
Thanks royally.
--TK

Looks like headers are missing or can't be located or some necessary #define isn't defined. The compiler is complaining about some references to things it doesn't grok. In the second case, the compiler is trying to use an intuitive internal definition and is warning you that what it is doing has a high risk of being wrong (they usually are wrong).

I'll have to bring up my SuSE system again and see where those calls are defined. I don't know whether they come from that libusb or whether they are system calls into the driver. I'll try to look at it in the morning.

You did the "make install" for libusb, right?

newbie123

Quote from: qiman on August 01, 2009, 03:43:35 PM
From Rosemary:
Guys - I've just watched yet another sad attempt at TK trying to apply power analysis to my circuit - two efforts on youtube, both using a LeCroy. He's using a machine which, by his own acknowledgement has the dc off set on the blink. Any analysis after this point is entirely erroneous. Please disregard any numbers at all that he references in either of the two videos. The wattage analysis function that he's employed relates to the product of the entire waveform. It is not able to determine the returning energy that is evident in voltage across the shunt and across the battery.

Also. There is clear evidence of aliasing - and he does not have enough samples to draw an analysis. He does not have a periodic waveform and is trying to draw conclusions from a ridiculously small sample range. If there were any validity in his claim he should be able to point to the dump with the numbers that determine the voltage across the shunt. He can't do this because DC coupling on the LeCroy is broken! For goodness sake.

Quite apart from which I suggest he brush up on his mental arthimetic. It's sadder than this new attempt at debunking. What qualifications does this man have? I'm an amateur and can see through this nonsense? Why .99 are you not poynting this out? And Hoppy? And MileHigh? Why do I need to do this? Where is the impartiality of our mainstream scientists?

ps. from me - your recommended Mosfet is AVALANCHE PROOF ensuring that it cannot ever go into oscillation. Good recommendation on the diode though :)

To Rosemary...     Show us the OU...   It is your job...  Not everyone else's job.



Until you can measure it, arguing about something can be many things.. But science is not one of them.

TinselKoala

Quote from: qiman on August 01, 2009, 03:43:35 PM
From Rosemary:
Guys - I've just watched yet another sad attempt at TK trying to apply power analysis to my circuit - two efforts on youtube, both using a LeCroy. He's using a machine which, by his own acknowledgement has the dc off set on the blink. Any analysis after this point is entirely erroneous. Please disregard any numbers at all that he references in either of the two videos. The wattage analysis function that he's employed relates to the product of the entire waveform. It is not able to determine the returning energy that is evident in voltage across the shunt and across the battery.

Also. There is clear evidence of aliasing - and he does not have enough samples to draw an analysis. He does not have a periodic waveform and is trying to draw conclusions from a ridiculously small sample range. If there were any validity in his claim he should be able to point to the dump with the numbers that determine the voltage across the shunt. He can't do this because DC coupling on the LeCroy is broken! For goodness sake.

Quite apart from which I suggest he brush up on his mental arthimetic. It's sadder than this new attempt at debunking. What qualifications does this man have? I'm an amateur and can see through this nonsense? Why .99 are you not poynting this out? And Hoppy? And MileHigh? Why do I need to do this? Where is the impartiality of our mainstream scientists?

ps. from me - your recommended Mosfet is AVALANCHE PROOF ensuring that it cannot ever go into oscillation. Good recommendation on the diode though :)

Well, it's clear from that that she has no idea what she is talking about.

I'll have to let someone else explain it to her, because clearly she is incapable of understanding my extremely simplified explanations--requiring as they do an elementary understanding of math and science.

And Aaron, no mosfet is avalanche proof, and if the 2sk1548 is not right, how come it WORKS BETTER in the Ainslie circuit than the irfpg50?

You are a fool, and it shows more and more with every post you make here.

And I thought we put to bed the false issue of mosfet oscillation. Your mosfet isn't oscillating--at least your scope shots aren't showing it.

I DARE YOU to show a side-by-side comparison of the two mosfets as I have done.