another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

There is absolutely NO information related to the NERD circuit that is being withheld - to the best of my knowledge.

THAT is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Drain voltage traces, critical for diagnosis. Contact details for your co-authors (standard in scientific communications.) Results from properly performed battery capacity tests. RAW DATA.
WHY WAS A BATTERY REMOVED FROM THE STACK for the second, high heat part of the demo? WHY have you never shown a high heat demonstration using a positive gate pulse and a 72 volt battery pack?
There is so much information that you are withholding that it's like trying to do remote viewing. In fact, we'd be doing a lot better if you would just SHUT UP and stop giving so much MISinformation.

The best of your knowledge is not so good, Rosie Poser.

[MileHigh]

PW:

If we knew the drain current, we would know the total of AC and DC currents at that point.

At the source, the AC and DC paths split.  DC to BAT- via FG, AC to BAT- via FG and moreso via CSR.

We don't have Idrain for AC or DC, so we must rely on the source current paths for measurement.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying.  We can't ignore the AC paths as the AC is not symmetrical.

I agree that there is DC and AC current passing through the function generator.  And I agree that AC current is passing through he current sensing resistor.

You state that you need to look at the separate source current paths for measurement.   Try taking a top view and think about what we are trying to measure -> the power supplied by the battery to the entire circuit, (or possibly returned to the battery) while the device runs.

You can break that down into the power dissipated in the load resistor, the MOSFETs, the resistor inside the function generator, and the current sensing resistor.

So, if you look at the AC current going through the current sensing resistor you are not accounting for the DC current going through the main load resistor (that's also going through the function generator), and by extension you are not seeing the power being dissipated in the main load resistor.  It's fraught with too many problems.  (tm  )  I will repeat, a negative voltage across the current sensing resistor does not necessarily indicate counter-clockwise current such that power is being dissipated in the main load resistor or the battery is being recharged.

In my opinion, the only way to do this properly is to get rid of all of the complexities and create a "hardware abstraction layer" for the whole mess.  For example, if you looked at the Q2-Q5 drain current only times the battery voltage, that would tell you the instantaneous power consumption of the entire circuit, (still talking negative offset oscillation mode) and as a result you don't have to worry about the DC and AC function generator currents and the current sensing resistor currents.

Anyway, that's my take on it.  Personally I would ignore all power measurements made with the function generator 'negative' terminal bypassing the current sensing resistor.

Hence, Rosie's reports are junk in my book.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

Sorry, that's not going to fly.  You must have seen from a few days ago that TK confirmed the current flow through his function generator with a digital multimeter.

If TK has got a digital multimeter that is able to accommodate the frequencies of the oscillation - then he has not shown us that multimeter.

Poynt also agrees with this.

And I'm reasonably certain that Poynt - more than any of you - is well aware of the 'smallness' of that variation in current flow as a result of the generators' ground terminal positioning.

You saw PW's comments from earlier today.

I did indeed.  And his observations 'error' as they're not based on the available data.  I've explained this.

The simple fact is that you don't understand how a function generator works and we do.

I suspect that my understanding of its applications are as profound as they need be for the task at hand.

I also posted an Agilent application note a few weeks back (reposted later by TK) that shows how you can put a function generator into the current loop of a device under test to effectively increase the output voltage from the function generator.

And this is relevant?  Somehow? 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is a critical flaw in your measurements and shame on you for intentionally changing the simplified schematic diagram in your two papers to where you show the function generator "negative" terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.

MileHigh - what amuses me most is that you really believe this.  For some reason you seem somewhat 'piqued' that we reference that CSR in the position where it really, really is.  There are 7 of us collaborators.  That's an awful lot of us must be heavily committed to publicly and fraudulently misrepresenting the fact.  7 criminals who stand accused by you MileHigh?  With your conscience entirely untrammeled by concerns related to the effects of what may constitute 'slander'?  Judged 'guilty' notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary?  Because you 'prefer' to believe this?  I'm not sure who should be 'smitten' with a sense of shame - except that it most certainly is not ME nor any of my collaborators.  And in the light of your rather reckless indulgence in traducement - I doubt that can presume to occupy any moral high ground at all.  With or without respect. Golly.

We also know that you originally pathetically tried to lie about the miswiring of the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs as is evidenced in your clip.  That's two lies about your circuit topology where you have been caught red-handed.  There is a sanctity about not lying about your circuit configuration and your data when you present a paper and you broke it twice.  This is a zero tolerance zone.

Zero tolerance zone?  Whatever next?  Am I here engaged in a discourse with Mother Theresa?  I ASSURE you - any reference to any incorrect schematics can be attributed ENTIRELY to my account.  I make no apologies for them as I had and have my reasons.  And the incorrect presentations have been ENTIRELY corrected - fortunately - by the timeous interventions and considerable skills of our Poynty Point.  For which - and for reasons that I will not make publicly available - I am PROFOUNDLY grateful.

This is because you are simply not understanding the fact that the signal you are seeing across the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal coming from the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs that are acting like an AC oscillator.  "AC-coupled" means that there is no DC current flow through the current sensing resistor, all of the DC current flow is going through the function generator. At best, what you see across the CSR might be an indication of the battery current, but that's all you know.  The battery current is flowing through the function generator and your DSO is not looking at it so your average power calculations are invalid.

This is just nonsense.  Again.  Where is the DC current flow going through the function generator?  Where is the evidence?  How?  And why does the CSR NOT represent the current flow to and from the battery?

The issue is not going away and that's why I called the marked-up image of the pegboard, the "Pegboard of Doom."

With this knowledge I can now articulate the proper "LEDs of Doom" configuration for you in negative oscillation mode:

1.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the CSR.  Both will light up because of the AC signal from the AC output from the AC-coupled Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator.

2.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the function generator output.  Only one LED will light up indicating that current is flowing clockwise through the circuit and the battery set is discharging.

The days for your proposition are numbered.

And as for this bit of propaganda - it's 'EXCEPTIONAL'.  Not scientific - but certainly laudable in the context of artistic irrelevance applied for flavour and bias.  At least there's no pretense at science.

Rosie Pose 'eo'.
 

[fuzzytomcat]

ROTFLMAO ....

Guys,

The start of the COP>INFINITY device of Rosemary's started ....

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg275428/#msg275428             on: February 20, 2011, 03:14:05 PM
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg294073/#msg294073             Reply #1790 on: July 06, 2011, 02:01:11 AM  ( last reply )

First post (1) and 1,790 reply's ..... = 1,791 sub total 

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941                                      on: November 08, 2011, 06:15:50 PM
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318113/#msg318113                                       Reply #1931 on: Today at 06:31:49 PM    ( last reply so far )

First post (1) and 1,931 reply's ..... = 1,932 sub total 

TOTAL POSTS = 3,723 

DEVICE COMPONENTS -

1) six (6) battery's
2) five (5) mosfet's w/ heat sinks and attachment hardware
3) one (1) load resistor
4) four (4) 1 ohm wire wound resistors in parallel for one (1) "Rshunt" .25 ohms

TOTAL COMPONENTS -

SIXTEEN (16) 

AVERAGE OF POSTS PER DEVICE COMPONENT -

3,723 / 16 =    232   "POSTINGS & REPLY'S" 



All for one simple circuit with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ...... Humm .... 


Cheers,
FTC