Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 08:49:36 PM
you are right, the full positive or full negative signal only turns on the corresponding mosfet(s). It is when the bipolar pulse swings +/- at least 5 v that every transistor turns on.

Really TK?  And you deduce this how?  From your test results?  Could you perhaps show us your report on this?  Alternatively could you give us another link to one of your 'educational' videos?  Alternatively could you substantiate this argument with reference to our own waveform downloads that show the applied voltage of the signal during the oscillation phase?  Or alternatively could you post a picture of your own related to this waveform during the oscillation phase?  Something?  Anything at all?  Otherwise your more discerning readers will all be rather disinclined to treat your statement with any of the 'gravitas' that you seem to be expecting.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 08:49:36 PMUsually I monitor heat but now that the circuit has changed _again_ it's easy to get confused.

Really TK?  You monitor that heat?  Or do you just casually reference it here and there when you imply and infer that you ONLY get the heat when you 'twiddle' with the 'knobs' as you put it?  And all before it gets into oscillation moed?  Is there a report out on the 'results' of any of those experiments?  Taken over time?  Or do you confine your observations to the 10 minutes of badly filmed film as the 'test period under review'.  In which case any conclusions that you may draw can only be based on inference and speculation.  I'm not sure that qualifies as a scientific argument.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 08:49:36 PMI have done the extremely basic FG offset demo some time ago; I'll see if I can find it, it's contained in one of the TarBaby clips somewhere I think. I set the FG to "DC" output and show how the offset puts it positive or negative as desired, and of course the same with a waveform.

Again.  I think we all need to see this.  Else it will seem like nothing more than an idle boast presented in the rather forlorn hopes that any such video exists.  And when you do eventually manage to give us a link - then perhaps you could also ensure that your camera is aimed at those 'knobs' you're turning at the same time as the 'screen' that you're showing.  That way we'll all be more inclined to believe you.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 08:49:36 PMThat won't prove anything though: there's no incentive for the offset to "sneak past" the oscilloscope unless a NERD circuit is hooked up.

On the contrary.  I'm sure we'll all be really interested to see how you manage this.  I certainly would.  Just ensure that you're plausible at the kick off - with clear filming and good lighting - and less reference to your preferred brand of lager. It's as tedious as your continual 'asks' for pickles when you posted as Hamburger or Humbugger.  One or the other.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2012, 08:49:36 PMBTW, I've built "every" variation that seems to be extant, including a couple of my own.
The single mosfet circuit shown on the early Ainslie photo
The single mosfet circuit shown (but NOT demonstrated) in the video
The 5x parallel mosfet circuit that was "claimed" to be the one shown in the video
The actual circuit shown in the video, with and without gate input resistance
The actual circuit shown in the video, but with the FG minus at the common minus, rather than where it is shown on the diagrams
The circuit given in the first unpublished paper
and now
The circuit given in the second unpublished paper.

We all know this.  Your attempts at our previous circuit were dogged with the persistent lack of the appropriate waveform.  And these latest are bereft of any decent report on your results.  If there is something that yet remains hidden - then I can understand these boasts of yours.  Perhaps you could make a concession to open source and can point us to a link?  That would be very nice.

Rosie Poser

Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 09:02:42 PM
That's not going to fly.  You can't present a report on an experiment and say, "we need long wires between the power source and circuit board."  Honestly, you are just 'absorbing' the wild voltage swings into your argument as a coping strategy.

No MileHigh.  We don't 'present a report' based on any such conclusions.  And we are not 'absorbing' wild voltage swings as a 'coping strategy' neither for our argument - nor for our tests. 

Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 09:02:42 PMThe "battery voltage" makes no sense and the current waveform in negative oscillation mode makes no sense.  If TK and other replicators move forward and do some more testing you will probably see these things explained.

I agree.  Which is why we propose that it's an anomaly and that we propose our experts determine what gives.  Which is also why we wrote those papers.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 09:02:42 PMYour fundamental argument is that your circuit is using the "potential only" as supplied by the batteries and the net current and net power consumption of the device is negative while it heats up the load resistor (and the MOSFETs big time!).

Absolutely.  This is entirely correct.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 09:02:42 PMYour entire argument is centered on what the DSOs are telling you.  You have been deluged with information recently telling you that your DSO input data is incorrect.  It's NOT the DSO's themselves, they are working properly, it's the data that you are presenting to them that's the issue.

Not actually MileHigh.  Those DSO's are collating the data with no extraneous interference from ourselves.  And I have NOT been deluged with information.  I've been presented with some clumsy disinformation that was insultingly transparent in its argument coupled by an insulting lack of proficiency in its delivery.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 06, 2012, 09:02:42 PMYou didn't understand how the circuit actually worked when you did your testing and wrote up your reports.  You have been learning how it actually works whenever there is an active thread.  It feels like WWII and we are fighting up the boot of Italy, fighting for each olive orchard one by one.  But the Allies will win in the end.

It is indeed a world war that's raging.  But it's a war of scientific evidence versus scientific assumption.  And I most certainly do learn how these strategies are applied - with every new thread.  But the theme is mostly the same.  I'm accused of stupidity - lunacy - mendacity and incompetence while the opposition prove their own stupidity lunacy and mendacity - with a remarkable degree of competence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Quote from: picowatt on April 06, 2012, 11:46:18 PM
FTC,

Both schematics should perform similarly.  There would be differences in current handling capability for different portions of the FG waveform and possibly some AC differences (osc freq, etc).  But essentially they would perform the same.

The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the FG output (common source) will turn on when the FG output swings positive moreso than the MOSFET threshold voltage.  The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the CSR (common gate) will bias on into a "linear" region of operation when the FG output swings negative.

The scope shot you posted is the same as from Test 1/FIG 3 in the first paper and was discussed somewhat last night.  The indicated gate drive during the positive portion of the FG output is more than sufficient to turn on Q1 (schematic of first paper) while the CSR trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  One must assume that Q1 was either defective or disconnected during the test performed for this scope capture.

Long story short, both schematics should perform similarly.  Also, we have been assured that the second paper schematic was merely a typo and that the first paper schematic is the correct one.

PW

Howdy PW,

So Rosemary has indicated 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.

Did she indicate that the device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in Rosemary's BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in her papers 1 & 2 or some other testing ? I can't seem to find that link from whom ever .... things get buried fast in this thread.

I see your also curious about the "DEAD or FLAT" battery test Rosemary posted in very first posting here in this thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941 I'd love to see this in a video or more details about it as there appears to be several people there at the time it was done.

Cheers,
FTC

@ PW, Fuzzy: Yes, in terms of waveforms the two will perform about the same, but in terms of load sharing it makes more sense to have the Q2 stack seeing the "plus" lead of the FG because when they are using the positive going drive, for big load heat, the load (and power dissipation) is shared by the four instead of just the one. The second diagram makes more sense from that viewpoint. But are we being told now that the FIRST one is correct? That's just because I have built the second one now. Watch... when I go back to the first one and again show the exact waveforms Rosemary shows, and she denies it... ANOTHER circuit will surface from somewhere.

In that recent scopeshot it again looks like no current is flowing in the CVR during the non-oscillation phase, yet there is a positive gate pulse of 12 volts or more. The magic offset knob is sneaking its offset past the scope again !!

And there will still be no testing forthcoming from Rosie Poser, nor will anyone get coherent answers to their questions.

FTC,

Those simulation schematics are indeed more representative of the schematic in the second paper.  I have no additional info or comments regarding them, you will have to ask Rosemary.

Possibly .99 and/or I misunderstood, but I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper, with Q1 a single device and configured common source was the correct one.

Possibly Rosemary can again clarify this point...?

PW