Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 09:40:13 PM

And POYNTY POINT.  WHEN in the proud history of science has the MAJORITY opinion every carried an argument?  Surely you know better than to rely on this to support your allegation?

R

Rosemary,
Actually, I said that the majority do NOT support my assertion.

Howdy everyone,

I see looking at the postings of Rosemary's she trying her best to get banned again, this is just what she wants and maybe a few others also. The lies from her are really going over board and must be from the life style of never being told "NO" and getting everything you ever wanted without being responsible for nothing, if there is any problems, just throw some money at it hoping it would go away. This affliction is also called the rich bitch syndrome, filled with addiction to denial and the rejection of authority figures.

Look at all the fine work TK has done with the evaluation of the claimed circuit having a COP>INFINITY and the help and testing from Poynt99 and Groundloop qualified comments from MileHigh and the numerous others throughout the past year. This isn't a debate as Rosemary would have anyone believe but a outright one sided argument, with her against everyone else and those that may become interested ask to many questions regarding any discrepancies of the facts you all know what happens next.

Has anyone seen a Lecroy data dump for any of the oscilloscope screen shots that Rosemary has posted at her BLOB site or here at Over Unity? I cant seem to find a single one anywhere, is this one of those things that Rosemary has hidden from us by accident or was it actually on purpose? Is Rosemary just using the math function on each LeCroy oscilloscope screen shot as the basis of her entire testing evaluation without using a single data download?

It would be really sweet to have some kind of access to at least the LeCroy SCRN0235.JPG  2011/02/22 20us 200K 10:18:41 original data dump and oscilloscope screen shot so the evaluation can be done with the channel data summation numbers that were taken. The Lecroy oscilloscope screen shots were so cherry picked looking at the default numbers that were assigned there's a lot of data that has been hidden for some reason which from what I believe not to any proper protocol used in a scientific testing and evaluation for verification of a claim.

Well I still stand 100% by my words the posting  http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg322290/#msg322290   Reply #1775 on: May 11, 2012, 09:01:05 PM  where Rosemary buried it as fast as she could like everything else that puts her standard model THESIS ...... ITS ALL ABOUT THE THESIS ..... not the device anymore it already fits in her rewritten personal "standard model", the one not advanced by others done without any accredited authority in the subject matter attached to a electrical device that never has been proven with any credibility to work as advertised or claimed.

She can't even produce a "CURRENT" image or photograph that the COP>INFINITY device still exists .... because it's gone !! 

FTC

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2012, 12:04:06 AM
@.99: Here is a blowup of the oscillations from a 72 volt run. Where is the 2 or more amperes of  negative mean current that must be there, in order for the "50 Watt" earlier average power level to hold? Is it missing here, but present there hiding somewhere?

Is there something that distinguishes one set of oscillations at a given voltage from another set at that same voltage? If there is, I'd like to know what it is. Besides a blown Q1, that is... I know what difference THAT makes !

How do the oscillations know, deep within a gate LO timeslice, that they are supposed to be affected by some duty cycle issue many orders of magnitude slower than they are?

TK,

The dates indicate that this could be quite a different test. I would not rely on this being representative of the oscillations shown in SCRN235.

Look, I'm NOT saying I am right about the 50W, I am saying this is what the scope computes as a MEAN power over that entire display. It may be wrong, but is there any reason that displayed 179mA could be wrong? Possibly yes. Is 50W average an unreasonable power into the circuit? I'd say no, based on my findings.

I would agree that going strictly by the displayed traces, the average power appears to be closer to 183W or so.

@TK


I don't know if it will help to illustrate the point, but is there any mileage in explicitly duplicating the standard "DC" portion of the trace in question using a  power supply and a function generator to switch it with the same frequency and duty cycle as the smoking mosfet screenshot?

If I have it correctly, it would make it easier for whatever power averaging features your scope has to do the job correctly, and maybe give people greater confidence in the conclusion for the DC component at least.

With the DC portion replicated in this way you could regard that overall shot as the sum of two traces - standard pulsed DC who's power contribution you can measure without controversy, overlaid with bizarro mosfet spasms.

TK:

Just a suggestion for a quickie test.  I am suggesting that the high "battery voltage" that's observed is the MOSFET drain-source capacitance (and the wire capacitance) charging up when the MOSFET switches off.

When you did the test where you added the extra coil between the batteries you observed a dramatic increase in the peak "battery voltage."

So my suggestion is to increase the effective MOSFET drain-source capacitance by adding a small cap across the drain-source and repeating the test.

Supposing the spec sheet says the D-S capacitance is 0.1 uF (I am just making a guess).   So, with the setup with the extra coil in place, if you add say an extra 0.3 uF across the D-S, what will happen?

If my theory has credence, then you would expect to see the observed peak "battery voltage" drop considerably.  If this voltage drop does happen it would not absolutely prove that what I am saying is true, but it would support the contention.

MileHigh