another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

I read your comments and I apologize but I really don't have time to respond at length right now.  I enjoy a good technical discussion but will do what I must to stay out of the "fray".  When I read this thread from the beginning, as soon as I read any "attitude" (from anyone), I scroll on until the conversation returns to a more technical nature, in doing so, it makes this rather lengthy thread a very short read!   

In any event, if you consider my discussions as "off topic", I will certainly honor that opinion and move on.  I mean no disrespect to anyone. 

Have to go for now,

PW   

Thank you picawatt.  I propose you take this discussion to TK's thread.  That's way more appropriate.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

What are valid discussions for this thread?  Again, I mean you no disrespect, but the title appears to refer to the flat battery test you opened with, but it was only briefly discussed.  As most of the discussion appeared to be with respect to your COP=infinity claim, the circuit that demonstrates that, and possible ways to verify the claim, I thought an analysis and discussion of the presented data was "on topic". 

I want to "play by the rules", but I guess I would need to know what the rules are.  It is indeed your thread so please let me know. 

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as to my contact info: I am not trying to publish a scientific paper reporting an experiment that claims a miracle in peer reviewed journals. YOU ARE. The referees of journal articles are ALWAYS anonymous.

And as to my raw data: every bit of it is publicly available, posted on the internet, to those with the wits to look at it. Yours? Not.

TK - you need to keep up with the times.  There is absolutely NO requirement for referees to be anonymous.  Only that they're qualified.  And that their impartial.  And that they are known to conduct themselves professionally.  You are GROSSLY under qualified - in all aspects. 

Rosie Poser

[TinselKoala]

It appears that implementing the 555 timer circuit in lieu of the FG isn't as big an obstacle as Rosemary has been making it out to be.

But then...we already  know what kind of trouble she gets into with 555 timer circuits. FTC has reproduced the 555 circuit from the Quantum COP>17 claim... I invite all interested parties to put it together and see what duty cycle it makes at the mosfet's load.

Nobody has to take my word for anything. Just build and test, build and test, see for yourselves if I am wrong.


Now... what are the preferred timings for the Big Show? Right now my 555 Tar Baby is pulsing at about 550 Hz with a duty cycle of around 70 percent "oscs on", and the oscs themselves are at about 3.8 MHz using the 830as.
So if I know the desired pulse rate and duty cycle I can modify the timing elements of the 555 to produce those values, I think. If especially slow rates are needed I will probably gang two 555s or use a 556 in a different mode.

[TinselKoala]

TK - you need to keep up with the times.  There is absolutely NO requirement for referees to be anonymous.  Only that they're qualified.  And that their impartial.  And that they are known to conduct themselves professionally.  You are GROSSLY under qualified - in all aspects. 

Rosie Poser

From the Wiki:

Anonymous peer review Anonymous peer review, also called blind review, is a system of prepublication peer review of scientific articles or papers for journals or academic conferences by reviewers who are known to the journal editor or conference organizer but whose names are not given to the article's author. The reviewers do not know the author's identity, as any identifying information is stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias, although this has been challenged â€" for example Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, asserts that the system has "well-known ills"^[23] and advocates "open peer review". Others support blind reviewing because no research has suggested that the methodology maybe harmful and the cost of facilitating such reviews is minimal.^[24] Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics.^[25]
[edit] Open peer review Main article: Open peer review Open peer review describes a scientific literature concept and process, central to which is the various transparency and disclosure of the identities of those reviewing scientific publications. The concept thus represents a departure from, and an alternative to, the incumbent anonymous peer review process, in which non-disclosure of these identities toward the public â€" and toward the authors of the work under review â€" is default practice.  The open peer review concept appears to constitute a response to modern criticisms of the incumbent system; therefore, its emergence may be partially attributed to these phenomena.

Idiot. When are you going to test your batteries? I have eliminated your last attempt at delay and objection: the 555 timer circuit.