Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:56:30 AM
TK,

Have you ever done a search online that directed you to a page of totally disconnected words only there for the purpose of attracting a search engine response?

PW

Yes, it always amuses me when it happens. Paragraphs of text that _almost_ make sense and sometimes even border on the poetic. I've never understood the purpose of those things.

Kind of reminds me of someone else's prose style, in a way.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 04, 2012, 03:19:04 AM
What we can prove, unequivocally - is that there's MEASURED evidence of a COP INFINITY.  How this relates to the fact is still to be determined.  It is either a measurements error - in which case standard measurement protocols need revision.  Or it's a reflection of an exceptional efficiency in the transfer of energy - that has yet to be demonstrated.  If the measurement of INFINITE COP warrants a prize then we can prove it.  If it needs to be demonstrated that it can outperform a battery's rating - then that is still to be proved.

Obviously
Rosie Pose

Rosemary's Quote -
What we can prove

Does anyone here know who "WE" is Rosemary keeps talking about ??

Is it a human being ?? A alien ?? A dog (or one sick lap puppy) ?? A troll ??

I keep seeing words to the effect of "OUR" also ... who is Rosemary talking about ??

There's all these kinds of imaginary people and things Rosemary posts about .... but not one living sole comes forward, no verifiable proof of things she bloviates, murmurs and mutters continuously about.

Who would actually back anything she says or does ?? NO ONE "EVER" DEFENDS ROSEMARY HERE OR ANYWHERE !!!

WELL ..... HOW CAN ANYONE DEFEND "STUPID" THOUGH ?? 

Does anyone here know who "WE" is that Rosemary so liberally spews everywhere about for the past several years ??

Quote from: picowatt on May 04, 2012, 03:50:10 AM
TK,

More importantly, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the CSR and therefore the voltage at the gate of Q2 can never be any voltage other than that of the non-battery end of the CSR, which is very near ground.  I did not know the obvious needed stating.

I seem to be correct in my assumption from that read of the blog link and subsequent responses that RA does not understand that an FG has a bipolar supply and that she believes the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2.  Apparently, based on her own statements, she cannot even read her own schematic. 

How can the FG signal ground or the Q2 gate EVER be any voltage other than that of the CSR?  It can't.

Again I am flabbergasted,

PW

Well, it's an easy mistake to make if you can't read the schematic. After all she knows the FG puts out a positive and negative going square wave pulse. But since she doesn't understand the schematic, she can't possibly realize that when the "negative" FG lead is attached to the circuit "ground" or battery negative--even if through the 0.25 ohm CVR -- it becomes the reference, and the _OTHER_ lead of the FG (connected to the Q2 sources) swings positive and negative relative to that one. Or simply stays negative, in the DC bias case we have been discussing.

But voltages are relative to something, always. The gate of Q2 is at zero volts wrt the negative battery terminal (neglecting the CVR) and is at -12 volts wrt the positive battery terminal (ETA: this "12" should of course be the total main battery voltage, whatever it is; I was thinking of just one battery, sorry for the confusion) , and at the same time it is at + 5 volts or whatever FG or bias supply voltage, wrt the sources of Q2 which are connected to the FG or bias supply negative terminal. When the mosfet starts to turn on the bias source is placed in series with the main battery, the gate voltage drops and the mosfet starts to turn off and removes the bias source from the series connection and the gate voltage rises and the mosfet starts to turn on..... and we have oscillations from an oscillator oscillating by known principles of oscillation.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 04, 2012, 04:22:09 AM
Well, it's an easy mistake to make if you can't read the schematic. After all she knows the FG puts out a positive and negative going square wave pulse. But since she doesn't understand the schematic, she can't possibly realize that when the "negative" FG lead is attached to the circuit "ground" or battery negative--even if through the 0.25 ohm CVR -- it becomes the reference, and the _OTHER_ lead of the FG (connected to the Q2 sources) swings positive and negative relative to that one. Or simply stays negative, in the DC bias case we have been discussing.

But voltages are relative to something, always. The gate of Q2 is at zero volts wrt the negative battery terminal (neglecting the CVR) and is at -12 volts wrt the positive battery terminal, and at the same time it is at + 5 volts or whatever FG or bias supply voltage, wrt the sources of Q2 which are connected to the FG or bias supply negative terminal. When the mosfet starts to turn on the bias source is placed in series with the main battery, the gate voltage drops and the mosfet starts to turn off and removes the bias source from the series connection and the gate voltage rises and the mosfet starts to turn on..... and we have oscillations from an oscillator oscillating by known principles of oscillation.

That's pretty confusing.  You lost me at -12 wrt the battery positive...

PW

QuoteWhat we can prove, unequivocally - is that there's MEASURED evidence of a COP INFINITY.  How this relates to the fact is still to be determined.  It is either a measurements error - in which case standard measurement protocols need revision.  Or it's a reflection of an exceptional efficiency in the transfer of energy - that has yet to be demonstrated.  If the measurement of INFINITE COP warrants a prize then we can prove it.  If it needs to be demonstrated that it can outperform a battery's rating - then that is still to be proved.

Obviously
Rosie Pose

Big deal. What you can PROVE is that you can measure a negative mean power product. You mistakenly think you are applying "standard measurement protocols" but you are not. And additionally you are "overinterpreting" your data, which even taken at face value do not support the conclusions you draw. You have not followed the scientific method, which is to attempt to DISPROVE your claims, at all. The measurements you make do not indicate "COP INFINITE" at all.... rather they indicate that you are not doing it right, and this is why your papers are rejected when they are looked at by experts. Your claim of outperforming battery ratings is, as I have shown several times, a direct result of your math and conceptual errors in making the energy and power calculations, and you have NEVER TESTED that claim in a proper manner at all.

So what it all boils down to is a bunch of mistakes, misinterpretations, and unsupported and untested claims. After all these years. Big deal.

NOBODY IS INTERESTED ANY MORE IN YOUR SCOPE SHOTS OR YOUR NEGATIVE MEAN POWER MEASUREMENTS and nobody doubts that you... or .99, or me, or PW or anyone.... can produce them. THEY DO NOT INDICATE WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY MEAN.

The only test that matters any more is the one you still won't do-- the simple DIM BULB test of battery performance.