another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, I invite you to monitor the voltage and current waveforms of the power supplied to an electric heater, or the heating element under your oxtail soup. Or... just take a straightedge to this scopeshot here, and tell me whether or not you were heating your load at the time.

You are so easy to refute that it isn't even fun any more.

[picowatt]

Poynty - I've just seen this.  Luckily.  When I change to AC coupling then the ONLY thing that changes is the position of that zero reference line against each channel.  And it moves to the center of each of those peak to peaks. But by all means.  Send me an email of that download with your annotations and I'll try and get back to you tomorrow at the latest.  Then you are free to post those comments wherever you like.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Rosemary,

I can assure you, the very worst thing you could do to present or preserve your data, would be to switch to AC coupling on any of the channels.

Good luck,

PW

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and knowledgeable experimentalist,

Here is a posting that Stefan did over a year ago with a protocol for the testing and evaluation of the device with a CLAIM of COP>INFINITY ....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg285971/#msg285971    Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 10:28:48 AM

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the
COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there should be a discussion on Stefan's recommendations on the testing and evaluation to be done in a timely manner the items number one (1) through number six (6) is a good starting point for anyone involved doing verifiable testing. There will be of some numbers that will need some correcting for content and new developments that has happened from one year ago prior to any new testing done or required.


1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE)

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .


Cheers,
FTC

[TinselKoala]

I will NOT associate with you TinselKoala - on any formal basis.  You are utterly disqualified as a representative of anything other than an absurd attempt to DEBUNK.  And I would NEVER presume to associate our NERD circuit with that absurd apparatus that you IMPLY is a REPLICATION.  It fails in ALL aspects - starting with the voltage reference and the TYPE of LOAD that you're using.  And it ENDS with the entire inability of your equipment to manage the required power analysis - OF ANY KIND let alone the required and careful tuning to establish the test parameters. 

Rosie Pose

Once again, Rosemary you sniveling coward: I invite ANY independent person or laboratory with the equipment and skills, EVEN ONE OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING, to test both Tar Baby and NERD side by side using the same protocols and analyses. My only claim is that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects.

I am willing to put my device up for testing independently. You are not. My device is ready for testing NOW. You will not be ready.... ever.

I claim that Tar Baby performs just like NERD and I have presented scope shots to prove it. Every scope shot you've shown, I have produced as well with Tar Baby. I have also presented MANY other tests on which NERD and Tar Baby's performance may be compared. It is indeed strange that two devices with identical components and scope trace performance would be claimed by someone to be so different without showing just HOW they are different. I have shown many many ways in which they are the same. YOU have not successfully shown anything, much less how NERD and Tar Baby differ.

And once again you are distorting and lying about Tar Baby. It is constructed according to YOUR most recently approved diagram with the addition of a 555 timer, also as approved by the statements you have made and which can be found in the WIKI page controlled by your co-author. It uses the same component types and values. The voltage used is that which you and .99 agreed would be appropriate for testing. The voltages are monitored in exactly the same positions as given in the demo video and in the various diagrams which you and your team have published. It produces heating in the load commensurate with your stated values at similar current settings. It produces the same phase relationship in the oscillations as yours does. It produces scope shots that look exactly like yours... in fact you have even mistaken one of Tar Baby's for one of your own. And finally, it has been offered for independent testing in side-by-side comparison to your device by independent testers, and it is ready NOW.

Your bluff has been called. Show your cards or fold, Rosemary.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary,

I can assure you, the very worst thing you could do to present or preserve your data, would be to switch to AC coupling on any of the channels.

Good luck,

PW

Hah... AC coupling. Some days ago she accused me of implying that they were using AC coupling (which I wasn't doing at all) and she profoundly denied ever doing it, and so I posted the Tek shot from her video showing one channel set to AC coupled.... again, PW, she doesn't know what AC coupling is, what it's for, how it's used to advantage, why I sometimes use it, or how to interpret it on a scope trace. It's funny watching her contradict herself, claim one thing one day and the exact opposite the next.....It's perfectly clear that all the LeCroy shots have all their channels DC coupled....

AC coupling is very useful, Rosemary, if you need to look at the small amplitude ripple sitting on top of a large DC signal, for example. If you simply used DC coupling and the appropriate vertical amplifier setting to easily see the ripple amplitude and waveform features, your DC value (the OFFSET) would be off the screen up or down. So one selects AC coupling and that large DC component is removed, and yes, the vertical center of the ripple is brought down to the channel's baseline marker, thus losing the absolute amplitude information but allowing the user to view the ripple at high magnification. In the case of the NERD device it might make sense for looking at, for example, the small ripple sitting on top of a 72-volt battery voltage during the oscillations, to determine frequency or p-p amplitude of the ripple. Or, as in the Tek shot from the demo where AC coupling is used for one of the high-voltage traces. But for doing  math, you need to preserve the absolute magnitude (amplitude), so DC coupling is recommended usually.

There, did you see her eyes glaze over? Next we will be _assured_ that my explanation makes no sense to her academics and that I am very short indeed for a self-proclaimed Grand Inquisitor.

Note item # 11  in the Tek screengrab from the video, reproduced below. This little sinewave symbol indicates the channel -- the green trace, in this case the common mosfet drains -- is AC coupled.

(@PW: this is also the only shot I can find where the scope's cursors are used properly. Note the horizontal cursor set (21, 20)  is positioned at one full cycle, and the cursors data box is indicating (17) that, indeed, the period is 100 ms, hence the frequency is 10 Hz. Unfortunately the vertical cursor set (1, 16)  is not usefully positioned.)

Note that Tektronix considers the actual offset _value_ to be of so little significance that it is nowhere displayed on the screen. The channel zero baseline markers, however, are vital and are prominently and clearly displayed at the left margin. LeCroy puts numbers in boxes, the more the merrier even if they are irrelevant. Tektronix makes extremely useful oscilloscopes with very ergonomic displays that make the most of precious screen territory and don't bother to display irrelevant numbers that only serve to confuse the novice user.