Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2012, 09:28:22 AM
These computations are in reference to the filtering across all 6 batteries. So the 6x factor was for probing the power in one battery and multiplying by 6 to get the total battery power.

The 3.3W battery power was computed by AVG[V1-V2(t) x V4-V3(t)] (V1-V2 is VBAT and V4-V3 is VCSR), but this does not account for the 0.25 Ohm CSR value. Therefore if we multiply the 3.3W by 4x, it equals the actual battery power as determined by the power probes.

This demonstrates that in order to obtain the correct total battery power, we should be treating the CSR value as 0.25 Ohms, not 1 Ohm.

If you read my analysis, you would see it explained there.

.99,

I thought you were using a current probe for "I".  That was my confusion.

Thanks .99,

PW

MileHigh - I missed this post of yours.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:02:39 PM
PW, TK, myself, anyone on here is under no obligation to reveal his or her identity.  I have already told you that I have read several postings by little kitchen table top experimenters making pulse motors that made it very clear that they were packing guns and would "fight to the death" if the "MIB" came after them.

I find this so amusing.  The MIB indeed.  I don't think anyone in their right mind would assume that any of you are MIB.  All I'm claiming is that there's a mission to deny any evidence of OVER UNITY.  And that mission does NOT rely on scientific argument.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:02:39 PMSo you stop your ridiculousness.  The internet has from the beginning allowed people to protect their identity if they want to.  If I want my identity to be revealed I can go on Facebook.  I am not exposing myself to the small chance of being shot dead in the street by a FUCKING NUTCASE.  Do you understand?

I'm not sure that any of us want to know your identity MileHigh.  I certainly don't.  I quite enjoy your posts - as a rule.  Latterly they've become rather too transparently partial.  But as a rule they're quite clever.  And they usually have artistic merit.  And I have no intention of exposing picowatt's identify.  I've been cautioned against using their actual names.  But it'll come out in the wash.  That's for sure.

Quote from: MileHigh on April 29, 2012, 09:02:39 PMLikewise, stop chasing after PW for teaching children to solder under supervised conditions.  What you are doing is simply awful, it's disgusting.  He is a good decent man and you are trying to imply he has done something unethical.  It's SICK, and you are the one being unethical.  I will complain to Stephan if you dare mention that again.

This is rich.  MileHigh the excessively responsible poster who also strictly follows forum guidelines - is threatening to report me to Stefan?  For what?  For defending my corner?  My character?  My competence?  And that defense is 'disgusting' as you put it?  You - of all people?  Trying to justify some elevated moral high ground?  Good gracious MileHigh.  I'm not sure that's an attitude that you can project in the face of your own slanderous accusations against me and your own general forum deportment.   And you think it's perfectly in order for picowatt to infer and imply  my lack of intellectual competence - to compare it to the competence of under sixes - and that he may do so without my 'defense' of those insinuations?  I must just sit back and allow this 'opinion' to be suggested as a 'fact'?  So yes.  Feel free to complain to Stefan.  Then I will remind him of your own slanderous comments and picowatt's.  And then let any fair minded person tell me if I'm expected to say nothing in the face of that slander.  If picowatt actually takes the trouble to teach under sixes the art of soldering - then I'll eat my hat.  I NEVER implied that I believed him.  I think it would stretch the credulity of the most utterly naive.  But there you go.  Clearly he's convinced you.
Regards,
Rosie Pose

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
I see now that Ainslie is doing her usual thing: she's now claiming that she hasn't been claiming that the FG can't pass current, now that I have made it impossible for her to deny that it does and HER ADVISORS have told her what's what.

But all of us reading here know that she has in fact denied it most vehemently until just today.

NO TK.  Not actually.  Not EVER.  You've rather relied on this 'spin' to advise the utterly uncritical PhiChaser - and possibly hoptoad - that I EVER claimed that a function generator does not pass current.  But the 'real truth' is that I ONLY claimed that it never passed current through the gates of Q1 or even Q2.  Nor does it.  EVER. And that slew of 'examples' that you posted of my own work NOWHERE claims otherwise.   

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:07:48 PMAinlsie, you liar, I see you've been going back and editing to CHANGE THE MEANING of your old posts again, you liar.

It is certainly NOT me who is lying and IF and WHEN I edit a post I make AMPLE reference.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 29, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
And there are still more that you haven't changed yet... but I have the entire thread archived and you can't edit that.

If there is any evidence anywhere at all that I claim that a function generator cannot pass current as you imply - then PROVE IT.  A function generator DOES pass current.  It does NOT pass current to our circuit.  It applies a VOLTAGE.  That is ALL that I've ever said.  You either DELIBERATELY 'implied' otherwise or you rather recklessly 'assumed' otherwise.  In either event - it was an inappropriate implication or an inappropriate assumption.

And the fact that it does not pass current to the circuit is something you have STILL not addressed.  You have simply 'ASSUMED' that it does - based on what now appears to be MileHigh's explanation.  I keep telling you.  You'd do better to base your 'belief' on known physics.  Right now you're assuming that current flow can defy our inductive laws.  Not sure that's entirely correct.

Rosie Pose.

You have said many times that the FG does not pass current to your circuit, but in fact it does, I have proven it several times,
AND BECAUSE OF THIS WE ARE NO LONGER USING A FUNCTION GENERATOR.

AND YOU WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO   NOT   USE A FUNCTION GENERATOR   OR    A 555 TIMER.

So you had better get cracking.


ANY CHILD can tell you that the FG, or whatever bias source you use, is IN SERIES with the main battery, the load, the mosfets and the CVR.... IT IS IN SERIES. And the gate(s) are in parallel with this series arrangement of the bias source and the battery. TRACE OUT THE DIAGRAM as MH has asked you to do many times, and as I have done in a video.  DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK for a change.

This means it "passes current" and it also means that its VOLTAGE is added to that of the main battery AS I HAVE INDEED AMPLY SHOWN. Once again you lie by implying that I have not shown this... but it is your own cognitive impairment that doesn't allow YOU to see what everybody else reading this thread sees very clearly.



What is the IsoTech GFG324 function generator? Where can I find information about this generator? How many times have I asked for this information... Miss Open Source? Your only recourse is to identify this FG to explain how it cannot do what every other FG in the world can do.

Is it a misprint, a typo, ANOTHER MISTAKE THAT YOU HAVE NOT CORRECTED? What is the make and model number of the FG that was used in the paper?

What is the IsoTech GFG324 function generator?

Can or does current pass to or from the function generator (FG) in the NERD circuit? Evidence from the simulation indicates that it does. See attached.