another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[MileHigh]

I just suggested that we try to agree on a test plan, where you lead since it's your project.  We have been talking about a low-tech brute force style test for the past few days so it should be doable.

Dropping the line "revealing my cards" is the totally wrong attitude.  You should be pleased and open and willing to discuss how to do a test and then take the plunge and do it.

Instead it's the Never Ending Rosemary Drama.  I double-dare you:

1.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Oh that's rich.

"I'm not going to test anything until I can get acknowledged experts to agree with me. And no one who disagrees with me can be an expert since they clearly don't know what they are doing."

Therefore, Rosemary, you will not be performing any tests. Because like Professor Kahn, they take one look at your "papers" and understand what they are dealing with, and back away as rapidly as possible.

You think I'm humbugger, that picowatt is harvey, and harvey is me. You make the most ridiculous statements that are refuted by a couple of cliks and Wikipedia...over and over and over. You are corrected on irrefutable errors and yet you persist in them for WEEKS and WEEKs, post after post, until even you can no longer defend your position, like with your bogus calculations and your "schematics". Then you just move on, without even any shame or attempts to do better in the future. You express your profound ignorance of just about every topic you comment on, and yet you think your position is unassailable... while everybody is laughing at you, in your face and behind your back. You are pitiful... but I don't pity you. I have watched you do the same thing for years: you sucker people into interacting with you by pretending to be sweet and innocent, then when they begin to see your true colors you turn on them with your vile invective and your hypocritical rantings and threats. The Naked Scientists, Asthweth, Aaron, Harvey, Fuzzy, and more... all these people started out just like picowatt, asking reasonable questions and pointing out inconsistencies and asking you for details and wondering why their exact replications didn't ever work like YOU claim yours does... and yet you NEVER showed any definitive testing in all those years.

And you aren't going to be testing anything now, or any time in the foreseeable future, either, so why don't you stop pretending you are.

TK not only am I going to be testing this but I'll be testing it under the advices and guidance of experts.  And it will be as comprehensive a series of tests as my pocket can afford.  And they will ALL relate to battery draw down tests.  And they'll include a repeat of the COP>17 test. And I'll be in the happy position of being able to refute those sad little disclaimers of yours - and Harvey's and Glen Lettenmaiers.  The real benefit is this.  That way - the work will be deemed to be adequately demonstrated.  And being adequately demonstrated it is also deemed to be published.  And then our academics can officially 'engage' in their own research and - with luck - they'll take this to the levels that are required.  I most certainly am committed to this. 

And until you or anyone else actually disclose your identities I'm disinclined to take anything you say seriously.  Why should I.  You don't even hold yourselves accountable for anything you say or you allege.  Just a whole bunch of anonymous Internet users  - assuming the right to insult a serious researcher and denigrate their work - based on the assumed authority of a 'talking head'.  Please.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I just suggested that we try to agree on a test plan, where you lead since it's your project.  We have been talking about a low-tech brute force style test for the past few days so it should be doable.

Dropping the line "revealing my cards" is the totally wrong attitude.  You should be pleased and open and willing to discuss how to do a test and then take the plunge and do it.

Instead it's the Never Ending Rosemary Drama.  I double-dare you:

1.

Of course we'll engage openly.  But only when I've got a moderated thread - as Harti's proposed.   God knows it's needed. 

[picowatt]

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,

I believe I have been nothing but impartial.  Most if not all of my posts have been entirely focused on a technical analysis of the data you have presented.  While doing so, I believe I have been polite and courteous to all.

If by "impartiality" you mean I am to join with you in the personal battles fought in this and other threads and exchange abusive comments at other posters, well, I have no interest in that.

"Thick as a thief with TK", I do not even know how to comment on that.  Again, if I am to join in with some verbally abusive battle with you or other posters, I am not interested.  Do I agree with TK on everythng?  No.  But take that green wire/inductance video as an example.  You immediately discredited it as fraud or what not, and those of us that understood the demonstration thought it was an excellent video.  Last night I asked TK a question, and within an hour he performed a test to provide an answer.  I greatly appreciated his efforts and his time to document that test. 

When everyone isn't passing rude comments back and forth, I enjoy reading what many posters have to say on this and other threads.  Does treating others with appreciation and courtesy make me "thick as a thief" with someone?

I fully acknowledged and indeed explained what you are calling "peak to peak values" and AC coupling.  The numbers next to the letters "ofs" at the bottom of the scope are merely the amount of offset applied to the channel to position a trace vertically with reference to the center line of the screen.  They have nothing to do with "peak to peak" values or "AC coupling".  Please reread my posts regarding them.

I complained about poor eyesight because the small division dots on the LeCroy are hard to read.  The LeCroy has cursors for making the measurements we must do "the old fashioned way" from the screen shots, which is count major and minor divisions off the screen.   On a scope with cursors available, the division marking is often less distinct as it is expected we will be using the available cursors and not counting small dots on the screen face.  Anyone who uses 'scopes routinely likely fully understood my comments.

I asked three questions once, and repeated them after a page or two of you and TK and MH bashing each other back and forth.  I thought we could stay above that noise and discuss your circuit.  Your response to my second request for answers was much more rude, I felt, than my second request for a reponse.  I have since learned to field questions to you and if you chose to not answer, so be it.  But if we cannot discuss technical issues with you, then do not be surprised if the discussions occur between those that do have a technical background.  All of my discussions, questions, and concerns will be but a small segment of those that would be fielded during any peer review.

It is only an overuse of acronyms to those that don't know what they mean.  I was responding to comments from TK and .99, and knew full well I could use very standard acronyms well accepted and fully defined in the field of electronics.  When addressing you, I do not use them as I know you do not know what they mean.  But in the quick response to TK and .99, Ibias, Vgs, Vds and the like have very specific meaning and I did not for a minute believe they would be unfamiliar with such standard "terminology".  You asked .99 what Vgs was, Vgs is a whole lot easier for us "electronic types" to say than "the voltage between the gate and source".  Similarly, Ibias is "bias current" and Vds is "the source to drain voltgae".  Data sheets are full of such acronyms that we in the field must be familiar with.  If it were important to you to know what the acronyms I used were, I would gladly explain them if asked.  It is not some kind of secret code between co-conspirators.  And now you say I am a "troll" because I speak using accepted electronic acronyms.

Again, if the rules of this thread are that I join in with abusive attacks on other posters, I am not interested.  I do not know what your battle is with TK, MH, .99, etc and I really don't care or want to know.  All of it is just noise that buries the topic and any hopes of advancing any technology.  You will have to fight your own battles.  I have attepted to maintain a professional and courteous attitude in all my posts, and refuse to stoop to any abusive talk or loose accusations.

I have an open mind and was willing to accept the very small chance that there might indeed be something of interest going on with your circuit.  Prior to a replication, I felt mining the available data to distill the effect to its essence and then looking for anomalous action in the replication a logical sequence.  Apparently, the data is not open to discussion.

So that is enough "off topic" talk for me,  I truly do have lots to do.

Best regards to you and all,

PW



   



   

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, we all know what happens when YOU moderate a thread. There is rampant censorship, editing of old posts to change their meanings, blocking of skeptical dialogue, inexperienced builders making lots of mistakes and wasting time, and eventually you have to give up, either because you yourself get banned or because under YOUR "moderation" everybody eventually goes away to more interesting and freer threads.

You aren't going to test anything properly, and that's not a biased guess: it's a considered judgement based on your long  history of prior non-performance, as well as your continuing ignorance of basic bench procedures.

Meanwhile, Tar Baby is sitting right behind me, making Q2 oscillations that are INDISTINGUISHABLE from yours other than the base frequency, using a negative going gate drive pulse from a 555 timer, no FG involved, heating a load with 320 mA current shown on the inline ammeter, and the load (250 mL mineral oil with the load resistor immersed in it) is at 125 degrees F and may still be climbing.
Oh... and of course I'm using IRF830a mosfets since I only have 4 of the Magic Mosfets and I plan on planting them in the backyard to see if I can grow a mosfet tree.