another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It's getting hard to decode your sarcasm. Do you mean that you think that "PER" does NOT mean "divided by" when used in this way?

Or are you really calling the readers here absolute idiots? I note that nobody, not even Mags, is defending your calculations. Eatenbyagrue, whether you realize it yet or not, is repeating the exact same course of correction that I have posted, at least three times now.

To the best of my knowledge 'per' NEVER means divide by.  Not even in scientific terms.  Just look up the dictionary definition.  But nor am I saying that you shouldn't use the term in another context.  It's just that Wiki doesn't, is all.  But there you go.  Not everyone allows themselves the license to redefine words in common usage.  And far be it from me to propose that you follow suit.

Rosie

[TinselKoala]

Golly.  I almost thought there - for a brief moment - that you wanted to keep this on topic.  Silly of me.  I should have known better.  You're only anxious to take this off topic.

Cheers TK.  How goes the funding for your little cottage by the sea?  Have you managed to get enough together since the market collapsed?  I see you've lost that easy access to all those oscilloscopes you had.  But my guess is that they were all of them in need of repair.  Do you see now how wasted were your efforts on that 'math trace' number.  You CLEAN forgot the need to first replicate the waveform.  But your videos then were as entertaining as they are now.  Can't wait to see you replicate our own circuit.

Ever Rosie

Since you are referring to my other oscilloscopes, you must be now talking about the first circuit of yours. Once again you lie, because I did indeed reproduce your magic waveform, your load heating time-temperature profiles, and much else with respect (sic) to that circuit. The evidence is there for all to see on my YT channel. I even used the same type of scopes that you claimed to have used, in addition to much more sophisticated scopes. And once again... I showed that you do not understand power computations. Remember the trouble you had with the term, "integration"? It was almost as funny as your present difficulty with "PER".

[Rosemary Ainslie]

FYI, I do still have access to better oscilloscopes than you will ever be allowed to touch. What is your evidence for your accusation that my equipment is not working properly?

LOL  The evidence on your own oscilloscope where at least one channel was out of use.  And by your own admission.  I got the distinct impression that you were doing a little repair job there TK.  Which makes you what?  A repair electrician?  Let us know.  And more to the point.  Let us know your real name.  We're all rather interested.  When I find this out and your address - then I'll call on you to account for your traducements.  Are you afraid of being held accountable?  Is that the problem? 

Rosie pose

[MileHigh]

Like I already stated Rosemary, "LOL" is your code word for when you are very uncomfortable with the discussion at hand.

Your counter arguments to the capacitor test were no good, and you were off in Rosie Posie Never Never land and not making any sense at all.

So you can "LOL" all you want but the capacitor test will bust you in ten seconds flat.  The capacitor test will show that the capacitor that is emulating the battery is outputting power to run your circuit in exactly the same manner as the battery it is temporarily replacing also has to output power to run your circuit.

Look, you still can't even understand the fact that the current loop that powers your nonsensical accidental circuit goes straight through the function generator.  You saw it in the simulation that someone ran about a week ago.  Nor can you understand that the function generator when outputting -5 volts is actually teaming up with the main battery bank and helping to power your circuit.

So you can be a blank slate and not understand how the current flows straight through the function generator, or how the function generator acts as another voltage source in series with your battery bank, or how a capacitor emulating one of your batteries can give you definitive proof that your circuit is conventional and not COP infinity.

Even though you are a blank slate and simply cannot understand these concepts, it doesn't mean that all three aren't true, it just means that you can't understand.

The truth is that all three things are true, and it's both unfortunate that you can't understand, and tough luck for you that you can't understand.

The capacitor test can bring this whole sorry saga to an end.  There are literally dozens of other tests that can do the same thing.  The advantage behind the capacitor test is that most of your peers on the free energy forums can understand the significance of the test and will instantly agree that your circuit is not COP infinity when they see the voltage on the capacitor decrease.

So I have a feeling that you are going to have to resort to using a lot more "LOL's" as time goes on because reality is going to catch up with you, you simply can't escape it.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Since you are referring to my other oscilloscopes, you must be now talking about the first circuit of yours. Once again you lie, because I did indeed reproduce your magic waveform, your load heating time-temperature profiles, and much else with respect (sic) to that circuit. The evidence is there for all to see on my YT channel. I even used the same type of scopes that you claimed to have used, in addition to much more sophisticated scopes. And once again... I showed that you do not understand power computations. Remember the trouble you had with the term, "integration"? It was almost as funny as your present difficulty with "PER".

No TK.  You never even got close.  And more to the point - you still haven't replicated.  It's your true genius.  You manage to convince yourself that you have.  But this is it now TK.  I'm not answering any more of your posts.  So help me.  I need to get this back an topic and it seems that Harti is as anxious as you are that you destroy this thread.

Cheers TK.  And may your efforts at replicating bear some approximation to the experiment being replicated. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie