Quote from: poynt99 on June 07, 2012, 08:21:32 AM
From the paper:
The definition of collapse:
The term "collapse" is generally associated with a sudden brief event. In electronics for example, we speak of the collapsing magnetic field of an energized inductor when the souce of energy is cleanly removed from it.

From the context in Rosemary's quote it is fairly clear she meant the oscillations ceased to persist within a few seconds of removal of the batteries. Relative to the 2 minute long period of the duty cycle they used in their tests, the term "immediate" is a fair assessment of the time required for the oscillations to cease.

Regardless of how long it actually took for the oscillations to cease in their test, their conclusion was that the circuit would not operate when powered by capacitors. The simulation and TK's TB and altoid tests indicate otherwise.

cough...cough... bullshit...
nice strawman... but we aren't arguing the definition of 'collapse'.
the definition of immediate
im·me·di·ate/iˈmÄ"dÄ"-it/
Adjective:   

   1. Occurring or done at once; instant.
   2. Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority".

Bullshit yourself Wilby. You are nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.

Do you ever plan on adding some value to a discussion?

Quote from: poynt99 on June 07, 2012, 05:07:51 PM
Bullshit yourself Wilby. You are nit-picking for the sake of nit-picking.

Do you ever plan on adding some value to a discussion?

.
kiss my ass poynty... you picked my nit... for the sake of nitpicking. and you were wrong. and you didn't add any value idiot.
tinselkoala/alsetalokin attempts this garbage on a regular basis, misrepresenting what was ACTUALLY said and then using it as his (fallacious) leverage point and no one but me calls him on it.

why don't you demonstrate that i am talking bullshit and show with your sim or tk's hackbaby these oscillations stopping IMMEDIATELY? 

What the hell is the matter with you anyway, Wilby?

Read my original post to which you are objecting. I am ASKING if they are claiming the oscillations cease immediately... as their theory requires... or if they continue for some time. They definitely are implying that the circuit will not run on a capacitor and they are saying that it does not because the oscillations decay. They do not specify a time but the use of the word "collapse" definitely conveys the sense of abruptness or immediacy. "Decay" would have been perfectly appropriate... but that was not the word used. Hence we can reliably conclude, you logic-impaired cricket-chirper, that the capacitor used simply wasn't of great enough capacity for a real test, SINCE these other similar and identical circuits run perfectly well on large capacitors.

You are being unbelievably and ridiculously obtuse. Do you wish to challenge any substantive point, like whether or not the circuits in question will run on capacitors? Of course not... because you know that they will. You know that you cannot challenge me on ANY substantive point at all, with demonstrations, facts and checkable references. Instead you will chortle in your beer about the difference between a Japanese mosfet and a Chinese one and whether "identical" means "the same" or "almost the same". Meanwhile, those that CAN, proceed to DO, while those, like you, who can only bloviate and obstruct.... proceed as well.

Link to a zipfile containing the collection of NERD scopeshots and the collection of images of choice RA forum postings:
http://tinyurl.com/7497ffl