Howdy members and guest,

As you all know Rosemary as usual isn't being forthcoming in any explanations for the errors being found in the documentation that has been provided as a CLAIM of a device with a COP>INFINITY

There has been stipulations for further testing by Rosemary from members at OU and the OWNER and moderator here and as always refuses to do any as it will discredit her "THESIS".

As you all know this for Rosemary is only about the THESIS and could care less about a actual attempted replication and if one would come around like the TK "Tar Baby" with unfavorable results it's immediately deemed JUNK by the Inventor of the COP>INFINITY device whom has no formal electronic training and has no professional input on electronic circuitry.

Therefor in all likelihood this and the other threads will be deleted in a few days from Rosemary's lack of professionalism in answering any questions and doing the required additional testing again for fear of discrediting her THESIS.

I have been able to figure out how to make a PDF file of the thread and will be storing a copy of it and the other threads earmarked for deletion for my future reference, anyone interested on how it was done can PM me for details on how to make a PDF.

I am attaching a copy of page #121 as a example of what it would look like.  (  another_small_breakthrough_on_our_NERD_technology_121_.pdf )


FTC

Quote from: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 03:01:01 AM
Rosemary,

For the umteenth time, I fully understand that you can set the FG output to a positive value to turn on Q1 and turn off Q2-5 or alternately set the FG for a negative voltage to turn off Q1 and bias Q2-Q5 ito inear operation.

What I am asking about is why the Test1 and 2 scope shots reflect that the generator is outputting a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 gate threshold while the Rshunt traces for those tests indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  All is as it should be with Test2.

PW

Actually it's the 8th time you've asked this - not the 'umpteenth'.  And here's my answer again.  I think my 5th attempt.  The applied signal from the generator is exactly as shown on the waveform.  The waveform that we can't access, which is from the offset and which presumably is buried within the generator itself - OVERRIDES this signal.  Therefore the signal at the gate is applied.  The waveform is shown.  The signal from the offset is applied.  That waveform is not shown.  Don't ask me why?  I don't know why?  However, I suspect what's happening is that the negative signal is then applied to the drain rail which overrides the applied signal at the gate.  But I don't know for certain.  I can only surmise.  And it seems coincident with Wiki's explanation.  However, if this is the case, then the applied offset signal which is entirely negative - also ENTIRELY restricts the flow of current from the battery.  And that applied signal at the gate which is represented as that waveform you keep referencing is there.  But is overridden.  I am reasonably certain that the waveform at the gate of either Q1 or Q2 is represented accurately as that rather zut instrument of ours is also ENTIRELY dependable and fully calibrated.

Rosemary

Changed the explanation here and there.

Rosemary,

When you adjust the offest control on an FG, I assure you, that adjustent is reflected at the output of the generator.  The negative or positive offset as selected by the offset control, adds a negative or positive voltage to the generator's output.  Connecting a voltmeter or scope to the generator's output whilst turning the offset control plus or minus will directly indicate this action.  On a connected scope, the trace will go up and down to indicate the positive or negative offset value selected.  On a voltmeter, the indicated voltage will swing positive and negative as well while the offset control is adjusted.

Is there anyone on your team with an electronic background that replicator's can ask questions?

PW.

Welcome, picowatt, to a long line of people who thought they could get coherent, straightforward responses from RA, or get her to follow a line of reasoning.

It is easier for her to believe that the FG can somehow sneak that "offset" signal past the oscilloscope and get it into the circuit without the scope noticing, than it is for her to believe a professional with years of experience and a rack of FGs on his bench.

And of course when I show a video of just what you describe, circuit response to varying FG offset... she will accuse me of faking it and will not back down no matter what. Why not? Because it will involve her admitting that there are great problems with the figures shown in the paper.

I'm processing and uploading that video, and another, now.

ETA: Monitoring the mosfet drain voltage is obviously the way to see what the mosfets are doing. To omit this important bit of data from the scope shots in the papers.... well, would you have done that, picowatt? The drains are monitored in Rosemary's video demo, but of course that only _relates_ to her claims, it doesn't actually contain them.

*Sigh...*