another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[MileHigh]

TK:

I read everything you said the first go round the other day and it all made sense to me.  I suppose one of the big questions is is this stuff about Q1 switching on covered in the NERD paper or not.  If it's not mentioned then I would think that they were comfortably numb.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

TK:

I read everything you said the first go round the other day and it all made sense to me.  I suppose one of the big questions is is this stuff about Q1 switching on covered in the NERD paper or not.  If it's not mentioned then I would think that they were comfortably numb.

MileHigh

Nah... I think somebody (not RA) probably knew just exactly what was happening. Otherwise why display that single trace on the Tek the way they did? They wanted it to LOOK like a negative-going pulse when in fact it wasn't at all. 

In fact, they could have gotten exactly the same waveshape and circuit behaviour by selecting "positive pulse only" and not using the offset control. But then they wouldn't have been able to say "we used the negative pulse only setting" on the FG, to hide the effect of the offset setting.

I'm being as charitable as possible here. Either they did it deliberately, which is bad, or they did it by accident, which in my opinion is worse.

I mean... look at the math trace. It's showing the straight multiplication of two traces with positive means... and it's giving out a negative number for its own mean. That "unstable histogram" warning on the TEk trace means something !! It's not just gobbledegook !! It means that the scope cannot calculate proper statistics on that trace because of the noise, and so any math performed using that trace will be unreliable or invalid !!The LeCroy isn't complaining because it's not quite as capable as the other one, not because it's not being fooled in the same manner.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear eatenbyagrue,

I am delighted to see that you are proposing a 'world' prize for recognition of my hard work related to over unity claims regardless of the thesis in support of it or of the results.  That's certainly as meritorious as are TK's claimed replications and is very much in keeping with the general tone of this forum that is entirely dedicated to the entire suppression of any evidence of over unity at all.  It would be an extraordinary departure if anything less was put to the table.

I think it is perhaps, long overdue to remind TK et al - that our claim has NOTHING to do with the demonstration that he seems intent on referencing.  Our claim is entirely and only represented in the two-part paper that Poynty very kindly made publicly accessible.  However, it is appreciated that TK would not be able to argue that evidence - so one must make allowances for his excessive and rather adventurous misrepresentations.  I would also propose that perhaps you could extend that proposed prize to include his own extraordinary efforts in this regard.  I do not think that anyone - in the history of these forums - has managed to so entirely misrepresent anything at all - with such a baffling series of scientific abuse coupled with an excessive liberality of invective and insult.  Commendably unprofessional.  And entirely adequate to the required 'disinformation program' that he relies on to earn his keep.  Hopefully it will buy him that Buick which he covets.

And I wonder if a further prize shouldn't be nominated for those trolls who, with Harti's encouragement, have usurped ownership of this thread.  It seems that they can allege anything at all - without limitation - with a freedom of expression that Joseph Goebbels would have difficulty in emulating.

In any event. It all lends the required gravitas to this search for over unity.  And it's a salutary reminder to us all that our over unity forums are actually only a lure to the unsuspecting - to suppress any kind of information that may advance the public good and that may free us from our gridlocked reliance on our equally abusive monopolists.  Who are we mere mortals to challenge all that absolute control - well funded as it is?

Kindest regards,
Rosie
added
corrected

[TinselKoala]

So test the thing. Test it. TEST IT.

Show that it performs as you claim, because NOTHING that you have posted so far, including the word salad papers you keep citing, supports your claim.


AND... if Rosemary continues with the ad hominem attacks and abuse and comparisons to historical figures ... SO WILL I. There cannot be two standards of discourse here.

Note once again that SHE misrepresents me and my commentary. She does not provide references for anything, except her word salad "papers". Where have I "misrepresented" anything about her circuit or claims? Where has SHE misrepresented anything about her circuit, or about me?
DO THE MATH.
Rosemary is wallowing in hypocrisy, mendacity, and wilful ignorance.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear TinselKoala

Regarding your instructions to my attorney.  I will ensure that my attorney get receipt of this and will most certainly address all the issues that you have raised.  Certainly they are apposite and require full explanation.  And when that consultation is completed and the questions that you raised have been fully addressed and when you have been answered - then I am reasonably satisfied that you will be billed accordingly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary