Quote from: Tenbatsu on May 25, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
This entire thread is filled with nothing but grown men and women acting like children.

If all of you spent as much time working on discovering alternate sources of energy as you do trolling each other we'd probably have a working, replicable device by now.

With all due respect, you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

TK,

Tested the low-power, low-voltage oscillator, and it works perfectly fine using anything from 2.2uH to 10uH. The "VBAT" voltage goes up as the inductance value goes up, so that may be desirable to a point. Also, of course Fo goes down as the inductance increases:

2.2uH yields Fo~3.5MHz
3.3uH yields Fo~2.5MHz (not sure how I got 4.5MHz last time)
10uH yields Fo~1MHz (I didn't test anything higher than 10uH)

You should stay with the 1N4007 diode, as there is about 160V reverse voltage across that D2 when using 10uH inductors. With the 3.3uH inductors, there is just under 100V reverse across it. I'm pretty sure Vbr of the 1N914 is about 100V.

The CSR resistor is creating an issue; in order to retain that negative mean power computation, the positive probe will have to be placed on GND, which is not what we want. If we move the circuit common to the other side of the CSR (as shown below), then you can easily probe both VBAT and VCSR without any grounding problems, and retain the negative mean power computation. This does cause a slight difference in the computed negative mean power; -4.8W (right side), and -4.6W (left side).

Hi Wilby and all,

well let´s just calm all down here and don´t use any name calling anymore and smut words anymore please.

Let us just stay ontopic and concentrate on the replication and analysis of the
NERD team device here.

I hope Rosemary will still do her new tests soon and so we see her side of the data
and she will not only post her outdated old data again and again.

I hope that she is not in here just for getting her thesis passed but will try to
find for herself the truth about her circuit....

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 24, 2012, 02:52:48 PM
hey harti... you stop them from harassing people and being uncivil and you won't hear a peep from me.  it's because you don't moderate this site that i have to demonstrate their (tk, mile, etc.) idiocy by mimicking it 'till they cry to you.

had tinsel koala not started calling people "ignorant sluts", "insane bitches", etc  OR had YOU ACTUALLY MODERATED HIM AT THE TIME i wouldn't have said a thing. how would you feel if someone spoke to your grandmother (not that rose is my grandmother) the way milehigh and tk speak to rose? THERE IS NO CAUSE OR EXCUSE FOR THEIR UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR!

Thanks, .99.  I had already picked up on the reference point issue, but I'm glad to hear your confirmation of it. I'll be working on the circuit tonight if all goes as planned.

@Stefan:

Obviously to some, the quotes Wilby attributes to me were contained in a remark that I specifically labelled as satire, even including a link to a popular American television program, Saturdy Night Live, where the line "Jane you ignorant slut" became virtually iconic as a sarcastic satirical jibe. And just as clearly, my post was in direct response to Ainslie's obvious sexual slur contained in her "caricature" of two people she has never even seen-- and which she explained as "satire" rather than a deadly insult to a macho Texan bareback cowboy. (But not to me, of course.) My point of course is that calling something satire does not really soften the blow. And I see that that point has been well taken.

Thank you for your continued patience and tolerance. The testing will continue -- at least, mine will continue -- and I'm sure the occasional content-less interruptions will also continue. As the post from new_user Tenbatsu demonstrates.

--TK