Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 12:54:23 PM
NO picowatt  - NOT ACTUALLY What we will show is that EITHER Q1 is on OR Q2 is on - which means that - SURPRISINGLY - there is either a positive at Q1 or Q2.  Q2 DOES NOT MAGICALLY change to negative while Q1 is NEGATIVE.  They are in anti phase to each other and therefore in anti phase with respect to that flow of current.
WE DO NOT MEAN THIS.  What we mean is that IF Q1 if OFF - then Q2 is ON.  Which means that there's a continual applied positive voltage to allow the flow of current from the battery supply during the ON period which is thereby rendered ON during BOTH halves of that switched cycle.
NOT ACTUALLY.  What you are doing is trying explain oranges as apples.  What we're doing is PROVING that the battery supply source is DISCONNECTED during that period of the duty cycle when the signal applied to the gate at Q1 IS NEGATIVE.  For the DURATION.

Rosie Pose

Frankly, you are terrible at making technical descriptions.  A "positive at Q1 or Q2" is a meaningless statement.  If you mean a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and a positive voltage at the gate of Q2, you are wrong regarding the latter.  In your first paper schematic, Q2 is turned on when the source terminal of Q2 is made more negative than ground (to be precise, more negative than the non-battery end of the CSR).

The FG does not and can not apply a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 as you claim.

Learn,

PW

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 11:06:17 AMI have NEVER claimed that a function generator does not have current flowing through its probes.  I have ONLY claimed that the current from the function generator does not move away from those probes.

"Maybe the psychic energy does flow through my hands..."


http://youtu.be/qUxWdIQVT_c?t=1m10s

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 08, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
My dear PhiChaser,

Just cut through to the chase.  Forget spin.  Let's get 'technical'.  Do you concede that IF we apply Q2 DIRECTLY to the source of battery supply - at its negative rail - that the oscillation will disappear and that there will be a continual positive voltage over the CSR - for the duration of each switching cycle.  The only variation being that the voltage will default to zero at each switching period?

IF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument.  IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests. And DON'T tell me when to those tests.  We STILL don't have our oscilloscope back from the calibration labs - which puts it a cool 1000 k's out of touch.  Quite apart from which we need to do our tests PROFESSIONALLY.  There's no argument that is likely to be supported with the sad amateurish efforts of TK.

Rosie Pose

Multiple edits.  Sorry guys

Okay, let's forget spin. So far so good, except that you won't find Q1 or Q2 or 'negative rail' in my post. Not at all ANYWHERE... So I'm confused... Are you trying to 'spin' me in another direction Rosemary?
I posted that I used my FG to light up an LED because you claimed (at the moment anyways) that the current 'stays' at the FG probes and doesn't go into your circuit. Perhaps you can re-word that so that it makes more sense?
I've said NOTHING about 'switching periods' or

Quotea continual positive voltage over the CSR"

either...

QuoteIF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument.  IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests.

What are you talking about? Did I miss something?? (Somebody help me out here?)
I lit up an LED with my FG PROVING that it passes current. You said it didn't. Now you say it does?
I'm confused... Where does the current stop exactly?
Or maybe it partly does, like your 'disconneced' battery that is still connected but really isn't...
No doubt you will get those new numbers posted someday... Riiight.

PC

@PhiChaser: You have no need to apologise for anything. The more real feedback .. hee hee... that AINSLIE gets, the better. I want you to post everything and anything you can that shows how ignorant and mendacious Ainslie is. Call her on her crap every time she leaves another pile of it.

Please CONTINUE TO DEMAND that she correct her calculations. CONTINUE TO DEMAND that she show proof of her claims. CONTINUE TO POINT OUT contradictions and misrepresentations and lies that you find in her posts. She needs the reality, for sure.

And if anyone can SUPPORT Ainslie's claims with data, references and/or video demonstrations.... let's hear from them as well. WHERE ARE ALL THE SUPPORTERS of Ainslie's claims? Where is the person who will repeat my capacitor bias supply test and show that NERD performs differently, as Ainslie has claimed? Where is the academic who will support Ainslie's "math" and conclusions?

There has been nothing but WORDS from Ainslie since the demo video that she posted last year (and lied about). And there will be nothing but WORDS coming from her in the future. She's not going to show any tests comparable to those I've shown at all. If she does show anything, it will simply be a repeat of the negative power demonstration, with a warm resistor hanging in the air, that she did in the demo from last year (that she posted the video of, and then lied about posting it.)

She will never do anything like a Dim Bulb or other proper battery draw-down test or capacity measurement in public.

And most certainly she will never be able to show any test that PROVES ME WRONG in anything I've said about Tar Baby's performance... which is just like NERD's in all significant respects.

And note again, friends and lurking trolls: Ainslie has repeated her usual tactic YET AGAIN.

A significant result is announced: .99 has obtained negative mean power in the simulator using a simple compact circuit with a 75-cent mosfet and a nine-volt battery and a handful of inductors. He's published the circuit and some waveforms that show the reason for the average negative power readings and it is the same reason that Ainslie gets them.

In addition, she's gotten another request from our host, to cease and desist the bloviation and produce some actual tests of her own.

And of course there is her hallucinatory fiasco over my latest video demo, where she sees a Function Generator and a Blocking Diode that nobody else can see, and she rants and raves for post after post about what she concludes from her HALLUCINATION rather than drawing the correct conclusion from what is presented.

So... what does she do? She AINS-LIES yet again, post after post of bloviating, self-serving, insulting, denigrating, mendacity, designed specifically to COVER UP the latest real information that we've generated here.

Well, AINSLIE.... you can't change the truth by trying to cover it up.