another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Picowatt - it seems that you want me to state the obvious. If you expect any co-operation from me related to anything at all then I would require that you prove some level of impartiality - AT LEAST.  Failing which I must assume that you are as thick as a thief with TK.  That you probably instruct him.  Else how do you explain that - 'never mind' 'carry on'.  And that  your agenda - like his - is to disprove our claim based on anything at all.  You have NOT acknowledged that answer to those voltages related to their peak to peak values with an AC coupling.  You simply complained about poor eyesight.  You have DEMANDED answers to your questions from me with the same flaunted lack of respect that our trolls employ.  And you are are now regressing to an overuse of acronyms that are ENTIRELY undefined which is the 'troll' 'fall back' when all else fails.  Therefore, I put it to you that there is real evidence that I may, as with TK and MileHigh - ignore your input as having an 'agenda' that is patently obvious.  Quite apart from which, there is nothing preventing you airing your opinions on TK's own thread.  Move there.  I am more than a little tired of TK's rather rushed and anxious desire to 'test everything' in the hopes that he can thereby obviate any further need for my own test demonstrations.  There is NOTHING that will justify any dependency on anything that TK presents as he's PROVED his partiality in every post that he posts.  And that ENTIRELY disqualifies him from comment.  What do you seriously propose you can do to allow any dependency on his data at all.  He's distortions on just one video alone are enough to satisfy any objective person that he will go to some considerable lengths to infer and imply whatever he chooses.  And it seems that none of you are prepared to acknowledge those rather transparent  ploys of his.

And the topic of this thread has moved with the wind.  But currently the object is to move towards a genuine replication that I understood you were about to do.  And to hold to our rights to demonstrate our claims publicly for the benefit of public interest that requires more efficient energy supplies.  The less obvious sub theme is to show up some rather abusive troll tactics for what they are.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

From the Wiki:


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

You are the idiot TK.  You referenced BLIND peer review.  There is no obligation for the review process to be BLIND. 

And I am MOST ANXIOUS to do the 555 timer circuit test.  But I will not do it until I have a new thread which I can moderate as agreed by Harti.
What I'm waiting for is to have his further agreement to then allow our NERD circuit to be equally and publicly displayed.  And our own undertakings will present the data considerably more conclusively than your own efforts.  They'd need to be.

Rosie Pose

[MileHigh]

Oh Rosie Posie Punch-a-Nosey...

We are encouraging you to do a battery draw down test.  TK has made suggestions, I have made suggestions, I am pretty sure that Poynt has made suggestions in the past.

If you really wanted to you could 'rally' and put your batteries in a corner and set up the peg board on a table.

Distill all the the information that has been provided to you into a ten-point test plan and share it with us for our feedback.  Within short order I would hope that we could agree with your plan.

The only 'rocket science' is to start with fully-charged batteries that you know are good, then run your setup in negative offset oscillation mode for as long as you have calculated that you need to run it, and then do the dim bulb test.

Time to stop whining and get off your butt and do something real.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Oh Rosie Posie Punch-a-Nosey...

We are encouraging you to do a battery draw down test.  TK has made suggestions, I have made suggestions, I am pretty sure that Poynt has made suggestions in the past.

If you really wanted to you could 'rally' and put your batteries in a corner and set up the peg board on a table.

Distill all the the information that has been provided to you into a ten-point test plan and share it with us for our feedback.  Within short order I would hope that we could agree with your plan.

The only 'rocket science' is to start with fully-charged batteries that you know are good, then run your setup in negative offset oscillation mode for as long as you have calculated that you need to run it, and then do the dim bulb test.

Time to stop whining and get off your butt and do something real.

MileHigh

My dear MileHigh

I have not spent the most of this year on this forum in order to simply show you and TK and anyone else anything at all.  My intention is to take the tests to a level that they can no longer be refuted.  And the only way to do that is in terms of the tests that I propose with the active engagement of acknowledged experts as the arbiters. 

I would indeed have to be the idiot that you all accuse me of - if I did anything less.  You may recall.  My previous attempt at being 'guided' by open source personalities resulted in Glen's theft of our paper - and his and Harvey's denial of any advantages.  Which has regressed the progress of this technology for a further 2 years.  Fortunately we were able to find even better values.  And we also have anomalies now that more than merit expert investigation.  Which meant that I had to work excessively hard to salvage this from what would have been certain extinction. So.  Don't expect me to be quite that foolhardy as to trust to you members again.  I've been many times bitten.  I've certainly learned better.

Rosie Pose

And picwatt - there's that in your writing style that brings Harvey Gramm very much to mind.  Which is probably why I'm rather inclined to distrust you.  With respect.

[MileHigh]

Oh God... So the drama continues...

Forget the "experts" business and the "academics" business Rosie...

A reasonable test can be worked out and some of the people that you are speaking to right here right now are experts.  Has that crossed your mind?

You have been qualified and from inference your team has been qualified and clearly none of you are experts.

You can't call up two professors at a university and expect them to engage with you.  It's not workable and not realistic.  And, again, all of the expertise you need is right here.

This 'fight' in this thread is just 'juice' - something that you feed off of.  It's not about the test, it's about the challenge to come here and defend your proposition every day.  That's what drives you.

Just do a real test.  We all think that we know what the outcome will be, don't we?  Do the test please.

MileHigh