My dear MileHigh
Your efforts are laudable.  Your technique transparent.  Your criticisms repetitive.  And your complaint as ever, would be better applied to your own good self.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PM
I see that you backtracked and edited down your posting.  Your paragraph about current flowing through the function generator was the usual nonsensical word salad.  Did you do some homework?  I would think not.

I edited NOTHING other than the paragraph spacing and the splitting of this post.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMThen there were the 'conspiracy' allegations yet again. Exxon is very worried about a little old lady in South Africa that can't string six words together about electronics that make sense... not.

I made NO conspiracy allegations.  I merely stated that you and picowatt and TK have a 'mission' to deny.  But you're right.  I am well aware of a conspiracy.  I'd need to be utterly naive to assume otherwise.  Why else would TK and picowatt be working so long - SO MANY HOURS - at this?  It's beggars belief.  If this were simply about the delusions of a little old lady - then?  Let me do my test 'unmolested'.  Because it will simply FAIL - if you're opinion is also based on 'belief' or, as you put it - 'the real truth'.  Of COURSE there's a conspiracy.  And it's CRITICAL that this work of ours is disparaged.  And my name along with it.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMYou also made two separate references to current flowing through the gates of the MOSFETs.  Only in the Bizarro Universe Rosemary.  That's where the source and drain pins block current and current flows through the gate.

WHERE?  Where did I make two separate references to current flowing through the gates of the MOSFETs?  I did NOT.  THAT - MilesOutOfLine - is SIMPLY NOT THE 'REAL TRUTH'.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMWhat you and the readers are witnessing is convergence. As more and more data comes in, it's all pointing to a conventional under unity setup where the batteries discharge their energy to heat up some MOSFETs and a load resistor all the while being helped in this task by the function generator.  With the current flowing straight through the function generator itself.

WHAT?  On the strength of those videos of TK?  I'm working on that dissertation MileHigh.  You'll have a detailed analysis of the nonsense related to those vidoes.  Just sit tight.  It'll be posted by tomorrow - if I get to finish it then.  Else wait for Tuesday. 

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PMWhen you do your battery draw-down tests and the shock of reality hits you I think you should just walk away from the whole thing.

INDEED.  Let's wait and see.  I know EXACTLY how the one test will pan - because we've already rerun it.  It's the NERD circuit that's yet to be tested.  And I'd prefer it that TK post his results FIRST.

Rosie Pose

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 29, 2012, 07:43:51 PM
I am preparing a detailed transcript and report of every single video that TK has made.  I will post that report with appropriate comments and with links to those videos - when I'm ready.

Rosemary

Rosemary or Dooziedont or whatever ....

Why don't you log in and post your comments at YouTube where the videos are published ??

You have several accounts there at YouTube so use them if you have some more half ass comments to make, this way the "WHOLE" world can see what your thinking process is. Then your not just posting on a single thread on one forum. Personally you sound like a broken record saying the same crap over and over, wheres your expert authors at there sure hiding from you, me and this or any forum?? We the Open Source community need someone who has a formal education in electronics from your South African NERD RAT team where are they, it's only been three years with a "NO" show from not a single sole you bloviate about constantly.

Don't you have testing to do yourself at Stefans request .... where is it ?? Did you take the COP>INFINITY experimental device apart to destroy all the evidence like you did the COP>17 device of yours ?? How about getting a photograph or some verified detailed manufacture information on your .25 ohm shunt resistor assembly on this proposed COP>INFINITY device ??

FTC

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 03:45:03 PM
Yup... I should be able to do the comparison between one battery decoupled with caps and one battery naked.

So this will be done with and without decoupling caps right at the battery, but the battery probe at the board itself?
If I put the battery probe on the battery, then I'll have the issue with probe grounds at different points; if I put the battery probe at the power entry points at the board, then I'll have those long battery leads....
Well, I guess I'll just do it everywhichaway and see what happens.

At this point it looks like the logistics are good to go, anyhow... I mean my car is back together and except for my housemates being in the hospital... all is good for tomorrow's play date.

Meanwhile here's the video of what we've been discussing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPESB5-5iTA

TK,

You might consider beefing up the batt- lead to your board.  Try multiple runs of short wire (tightly bundled individually insulated parallel runs is sometimes better for reducing inductance than going with a large wire)  Do you have any braid? (works very well).  Of course you could always drag out some copper pipe.

PW

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 08:11:31 PM
Thanks....

The issue of ground loops is an important one and we've discussed it before.  On my equipment, the grounding schemes are as follows:

HP180a scope:  probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Tektronix RM503 scope: probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Interstate F43 HV FG:  output "negative" or BNC shields are all connected to chassis ground and line cord ground.
WaveTek Model III FG:  output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground -- UNLESS it's connected to some other bit of kit in which case it's grounded through the negative or BNC shield.
Elenco XP-581 regulated PS: output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.
Philips PM6676 counter: input BNC shields/signal grounds are connected to chassis and line cord ground.
Simpson Model 464 DMM: inputs floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.

And the Tek DSO that I sometimes use is grounded, all probe grounds are connected together and to the line cord ground.

(But if anyone has a Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, its probe grounds are isolated from each other and from the instrument chassis ground and the line cord power adapter (which doesn't even have a third pin). A very handy feature if it's understood and not misused. Unfortunately... the ones I use are at another location right now.)

For the past week or more we have NOT been using the FGs at all. We have been using either a 9v battery supply for bias (floating) or the Elenco PS (floating) or the circuit's main battery lowest unit ( grounded to the main circuit of course.)
The scope is grounded back to the power line ground but nothing else connected to the circuit is grounded. The only GLpossible in the "current" setup is between the scope probe ground leads.

Most of the time when I use the FG, I'm running a direct connection using BNC from the FG to either the scope's external trigger input or to a channel input or both... this means that the FG and scope are mutually grounded no matter what I do to ground plugs.... and the same will likely be true for the NERD equipment, but I am not completely certain about that.

I want to emphasise here that the negative average mean power measurements that I've been making do not use anything other than the one scope hooked to the circuit, no other equipment grounded or otherwise is used during these measurements. The bias source has been either the regulated PS (floating), the external 9v battery, or the circuit's own main battery, for all my power determinations. Unlike in the NERD demonstration.

So.... the bottom line is that even by cutting off a pin from the grounding adapter, as long as an oscilloscope with grounded probe grounds is connected to the same point as the function generator "negative" or BNC shield, the FG will still be common-grounded back to the line, through the scope grounds. The only way to isolate the scope and the FG completely is to use differential voltage probes and/or non-contact current probes. Or by floating both instruments by ungrounding them both, but they still will be connected through their shields.
I think.

WHAT is the "IsoTech GFG 324" function generator claimed to be used in the papers?  What is its grounding scheme?

TK,

Like I said, grounding is an art!

PW

My dear MileHigh - regarding this edit of yours...

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 08:03:40 PM
Rosemary:
TK never said that current flows through the GATE.

STOP THIS NONSENSICAL IDIOT TALK ABOUT CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE GATES.

TK's ENTIRE argument depends on current passing through the gate.  He's shown great reams of video on EXACTLY THIS POINT.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU.  AND WHAT are you talking about? 

Rosie Pose