Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 27, 2012, 02:23:08 AM
Hi Guys,

Just a quick word.  There is no way under God's sun that we or anyone can generate any version of the required oscillation without the use of a feedback diode of some sort.

And of course when somebody DOES make the "required oscillations" with a mosfet or other transistor that does NOT have the body diode or any other diode... Ainslie will simply say "those aren't the required oscillations". You lying hypocrite handwaver with no testable hypotheses, you'll never acknowledge any of the mounds of data that prove you wrong, over and over.

Ainslie, your magic oscillations are simple feedback oscillations, just as they are in my Class E sstc. The mosfet's internal body diode is unimportant except to protect the mosfet and the zeners are just there for voltage regulation. NO DIODES ARE NEEDED to make your "required oscillations", not even the internal body diode of the mosfet. Any transistor can do essentially the same thing, INCLUDING making your magical meaningless mismeasured "negative mean power".

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
You are sick. When you have paid your private investigators and your lawyers to send me an expensive letter with no teeth, THEN I'll reply to them with all of my data, which they will be obligated to read. It's your serve, Ainslie, and you are way behind, because I have all this evidence, including the physical threats you've made, preserved IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

So you say - Little TK.  Over and over.  Your claims are FATUOUS.  Your posts are RIDICULOUS.  Your representations are DUBIOUS.  Your experimental aptitudes - HOPELESS.  Your allegations are ODIOUS.  Your insinuations - MENDACIOUS.  And so it goes.

I'd add to this list but I'm already bored.

Rosie Pose

And Guys,

Just a gentle reminder.  Our technology unequivocally measures COP INFINITY - which is now likely to be validated by a very reputable laboratory.  Our paper has NEVER claimed anything beyond that measurement.  And that measurement has been managed under the MOST STRINGENT conditions with the use of the MOST SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTATION that we could access. 

That measurement - where there is a significant heat signature without any cost of energy from the supply source - is AN ANAMOLY - WELL DESERVING OF THOROUGH RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION.

What our little TK is trying so hard to do - is to diminish that significance.  The significance is this.  EITHER our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we're accessing a 'hitherto' unknown source of energy.  And our CONTENTION to this is ACTUALLY - we're only accessing what has been identified by our astrophysicists as DARK ENERGY.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Dear readers,

In the first paper (not the COP=17 paper), in FIG3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, the 'scope capture indicates that approximately +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  Surely all will agree that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause it to turn fully on.

However, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate any significant current flow as would be expected from Q1 being turned fully on.

This can only mean that Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic.  Q1 cannot be a functioning device connected as per the schematic and have +12 volts applied to its gate without significant current flow being indicated.

As well, in the FIG7 the gate drive indicates that Q1 should turning on, yet again, the CSR trace indicates it is not.

The only explanations given to date by the author argue that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.  It was verified via a phone call with LeCroy that the 'scope is indeed being read correctly.  The author has also had plenty of opportunity to confirm this with LeCroy as well.  Instead the author has shown no interest in performing due diligence and confirming the indicated +12 volts with LeCroy (or anyone else), but merely prefers to stand by by the false assertion that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.  Recently it was argued that the 'scope channel for the FG should have been set to AC coupling, which is a ludicrous argument, as all familiar with the use of a 'scope will agree. 

Therefore, to date, no credible explanation has been provided by the author as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7.  It is readily apparent, however, that Q1 should be turning and that the CSR trace indicates that it is not. 

Also note that in FIG5, a 'scope capture made the month prior, the indicated gate drive is less than as indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace indicates significant current flow thru Q1.

So again the question must be asked, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it is clearly indicated that it should be?

PW

She's a brick wall!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U

Dark sarcasm and DOOM!