Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[qiman]

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.

You still disgrace the concept of a monk - blasphemy! lol

You could be right and the mosfet manufacturer could be wrong but somehow, I think they know what they're talking about more than you do.\

And your mosfet only works better in NON-OSCILLATION MODE.

[qiman]

From Rosemary:

"The function that is down on the LeCroy is the DC off set by your own admission. How then can you average the energy delivered and returned to the battery? edit. And the voltage across the shunt averaged at one value then - for some reason doubled? And no-one pointing this out? And then the scope showing a wattage as a waveform? What was that about? And the apparent recharge that might not be a recharge? Just look at the waveform across a battery when it's being recharged. The same thing TK - unless a recharge from an actual recharger also means it's not being recharged. What nonsense you talk.

It's not so much driving to the grocery with a flat in the boot. It's more like leading us up the garden path because you haven't got a license to drive."

-------------------------
From me: Show your mosfet oscillate TK, I don't think you even know how.

[0c]

If it's missing headers I can install them, but I can't tell from looking at the available list what I might need.

Looks like you need an older version of libusb. There is a file created in older versions, named "usb.h" that doesn't seem to be created in newer versions. Instead, the newer versions create a file named "libusb.h". They are not the same!.

My SuSE system already has version 0.1.12 installed, which is newer than the 0.1.9 requirement for libk8055. So the already installed package (and "usb.h" and library) was the one on my system that was used during my build, and properly resolved everything.

The build and install I did for libusb-1.0.2 had no effect. It was stuffed in /usr/local. The compile found the required files in /usr/include and /usr/lib. Apparently there is only a certain range of versions that will work with the k8055 SW. I didn't walk through all the different releases to find where the API change occurred, but I would guess it was probably with the major revision change at 1.0.

So get yourself a pre 1.0 release of libusb, and I think you might be OK.

[TinselKoala]

From Rosemary:

"The function that is down on the LeCroy is the DC off set by your own admission. How then can you average the energy delivered and returned to the battery? edit. And the voltage across the shunt averaged at one value then - for some reason doubled? And no-one pointing this out? And then the scope showing a wattage as a waveform? What was that about? And the apparent recharge that might not be a recharge? Just look at the waveform across a battery when it's being recharged. The same thing TK - unless a recharge from an actual recharger also means it's not being recharged. What nonsense you talk.

It's not so much driving to the grocery with a flat in the boot. It's more like leading us up the garden path because you haven't got a license to drive."

-------------------------
From me: Show your mosfet oscillate TK, I don't think you even know how.

OK, since nobody else is explaining this, I suppose I will have to try, AGAIN.
The LeCroy has TWO INPUT CHANNELS.
One of them works perfectly.
The other one has a DC OFFSET problem so IS NOT USED in ANY of my demonstrations or measurements.

The FULLY FUNCTIONAL channel can be used to capture and store waveforms. It has several memories but I only used M1 and M2.
I used it to capture and store a CURRENT waveform from Ainslie point "B" in the standard way in M1. Then I reconfigured the FULLY FUNCTIONAL channel to capture and store a voltage waveform from directly across the battery in memory M2. I took pains to make sure the trigger points were the same in time for both signals.

Then I disconnected all inputs to the scope.

Then I displayed the signal stored in M1 on TRACE 1, and the signal stored in M2 on TRACE 2, and I programmed the scope to make an instantaneous multiplication--An INSTANTANEOUS POWER TRACE, or Watts--using 500,000,000 samples per second from the stored current and voltage traces. I displayed this computed Watts signal on TRACE 3 of the scope's display. (This seems strange to you Rosemary??--You apparently has never heard of an instantaneous power waveform, even though we have been discussing them for six weeks, and even though the integration of this waveform is what you have been trying to describe with your 3rd grade math language.)

Then I programmed the scope to use all 500,000,000 samples per second of the instantaneous power waveform on TRACE 3 and integrate it over time. The value of this trace--the amplitude--at any given time point is the ENERGY transferred through the circuit up to that time point. This integrated trace is displayed on TRACE 4 of the oscilloscope's display.

GOT THAT?

The scope is operating on stored signals obtained with its SINGLE FUNCTIONAL CHANNEL.

The Trace display and the math functions have nothing at all to do with the non-functioning channel.

THE NONFUNCTIONING CHANNEL WAS NOT EVER USED in any of my demos or measurements.

Nevertheless, the energy balance computations on stored traces are correct for what they measured. Small inaccuracies in synchronization do not affect the results significantly.

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.

[TinselKoala]

And I think it's hilarious that you circle "avalanche proof" on a manufacturer's data sheet and try to use that as evidence that the 2sk1548 cannot avalanche.

You are so very naive, it's actually kind of cute.