another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[MileHigh]

You are stubborn and if you were real you would have asked us to help you understand how current can pass through the function generator.

If you have a battery and a resistor and a function generator you could actually test it for yourself.  You would be able to see the current flowing on the multimeter display with your own eyes.

I have never seen anyone so pigheaded as you.  You demonstrate willful ignorance like TK has stated.  You make decisions about electronics that are wrong and will not let anybody convince you otherwise, yet you admit that you know next to nothing about electronics.

The fact of the matter is that there is a trail of crumbs running between you being wrong about the function generator and you being wrong about your "COP infinity" claim.

[TinselKoala]

A 60 amp-hour battery, fully charged, will take how long, running a constant 200 mA current drain, to go below its nominal voltage on an open circuit test?

Something in the neighborhood of 300 hours, I think. So you could run 5 hours a day, three days a week --  like a college student's laboratory schedule-- for 20 weeks, which is just about a semester -- on a single charge, and you'd still see the nominal voltage until near the very end.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary said,

Because I know enough about physics to know that it can't be.  You electronic guys do NOT have a monopoly on scientific commentary.

What "can't be" according to Rosemary is current flowing through the function generator.

That's pathetic and that's why things around here can get abusive.  What a jackass statement.  Ironically enough, physics does encompass electronics so if you actually did know enough about physics you would have understood and agreed.

You "know that it can't be."  I think that over the past two days there have been about half a dozen references that it is.

What just transpired above Rosemary is solid evidence that you will not last two hours, perhaps not even 15 minutes, with an academic or an expert that you want to solicit to help you get the throbbing inductor project to "move forward."

We are all that you've got.

It won't do any good, because Agilent aren't "academics" or something.... but here it is AGAIN: the pdf that describes offset usage, the FG in series with a power supply, and other important things that Rosemary denies are true. Odd that a little old lady internet poster knows more about these things than the largest manufacturer of precision bench test equipment in the world. Geniuses do turn up in the least likely places... but most of them manage a college education, at least.

[TinselKoala]

Quick, Rosemary... fill up another couple of pages with useless verbiage and nonsense, so people will forget about  my Tar Baby scopeshot, my 555 timer, and my Big Question:

HOW IS TAR BABY DIFFERENT FROM YOUR DEVICE DESCRIBED IN THE PAPERS?

[poynt99]

I think the time is nigh for the Big Question: How is Tar Baby different, in any significant way, from Rosemary Ainslie's NERD device described in the papers? Just what factor keeps Tar Baby from being an actual replication of the NERD device?

One thing comes to mind;

Have you shown a negative VI product on the scope as shown in their scope shots? I might have missed it, let me know.