another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

So little miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL" ... Rosie Posie ...

So the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo you say.

The device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in your miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL'S' BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) ( ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in your papers 1 & 2 or some other testing of yours anywhere ?

Yes or No ?? 

Is that "ONE" question to hard now ....

No more blah, blah, blah ..... I'll keep posting this a thousand times just like you do your THESIS crap until you answer the question !!!

CHEERS,
FTC

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

Regarding Q1 not turning on when the scope shots say it should be...

I have looked at as many scope captures as I could find of your testing and it appears that in all captures made after 2-22-11, Q1 is not functioning as it should be.  Scope captures made on or before that date indicate that Q1 is performing as one would expect from the data indicated by the gate drive and CSR traces.  It appears that on 2-22-11 there were some particularly "spikey" tests being performed as the duty cycle was being modified and I suspect that Q1 was being stressed at that time.  If you have additional captures to look at, you should be able to narrow down the date when something happened to the Q1 portion of the circuit.  I hope that helps.

Regarding the location of the connection of the function generator lead's ground clip, it does matter a bit.  When the generator output swings negative, Q2 is biased on.  With the generator set to its full negative position, if the schematic of the output stage .99 posted some time ago is correct, a maximum of -14.5V can be present at the FG output terminal when measured open circuit.  With the internal Rgen of 50 ohms, this would bias Q2 on at approximately 200ma.  This 200ma. flows from the battery through Rload, Q2 and the functon generator.  (If Q2 is warmer than 25C, the bias current can be greater than the estimated 200ma. as the MOSFET threshold voltage is temperature dependent.)

If the FG's ground clip is connected to the battery negative, this 200ma. of bias current will not be displayed on the CSR traces and hence not accounted for in the math calculations.  If the FG's ground clip were connected to the end of the CSR opposite the battery minus connection, this 200 ma. of current would be indicated at the CSR as a continuous +50 millivolts by the CSR scope trace for the duration of the FG's negative voltage output.  As the cycle mean indicates -28mv or there abouts, this +50 mv, if not in the CSR loop, represents a sinificant error.

I wish you could make more data available regarding the "flat battery" test you discussed at the beginning of this thread.  That test seems very interesting and using only one MOSFET in the Q2 location and three flat batteries makes things a bit simpler to replicate.

I can accept that not all data is disclosed for various reasons, but if a time does come when additional info regarding that test can be made available, it would be very much appreciated if you would do so.

Thanks,
PW

 


   

[fuzzytomcat]

Hey little miss mosfet "SUPER TROLL"

I'd like to see this test replicated again, beside the "FLAT or DEAD" battery test you performed on "YOUR INVENTION".

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg288257/#msg288257   Reply #1396 on: May 24, 2011, 10:40:47 PM

I need to remind you Poynt.99 that this test of ours is replicated on the following variation.  1 battery - used - same supply used to generate the charge for the switch - THEREFORE no functions generator - NO long wires on that test - NO grounding issues - same evident zero voltage discharge - and temperature over the iron resistor at 240 degrees which was hot enough to vaporise solder.

1) one (1) battery
2) no function generator  ( wonder what was the duty cycle was ) 
3) a 12 volt soldering iron       

Vaporized the "LEAD SOLDER" .... WOW .... 361.4 °F is the melting point, the Boiling point is 3180 °F and "VAPORIZATION" point is 179.5 KJ·molâˆ'1  ..... incredible !!!   

This is a must see ...... for little miss mosfet the "SUPER TROLL" !!!!


Cheers,
FTC

[TinselKoala]

Sounds all fluxed up to me.

[MileHigh]

TK:

I can try to make a "high heat mode" diagram in a few days.

PW:

Thanks for your comments.  I believe resolving the grounding issue for the function generator is part of arriving at the proper conclusion.

Rosemary:

We KNOW that it makes no significant difference to the values of the current.

Sorry, that's not going to fly.  You must have seen from a few days ago that TK confirmed the current flow through his function generator with a digital multimeter.  Poynt also agrees with this.  You saw PW's comments from earlier today.  The simple fact is that you don't understand how a function generator works and we do.  i also posted an Agilent application note a few weeks back (reposted later by TK) that shows how you can put a function generator into the current loop of a device under test to effectively increase the output voltage from the function generator.

This is a critical flaw in your measurements and shame on you for intentionally changing the simplified schematic diagram in your two papers to where you show the function generator "negative" terminal connected before the current sensing resistor.  We also know that you originally pathetically tried to lie about the miswiring of the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs as is evidenced in your clip.  That's two lies about your circuit topology where you have been caught red-handed.  There is a sanctity about not lying about your circuit configuration and your data when you present a paper and you broke it twice.  This is a zero tolerance zone.

Each negative oscillation is matched by a positive.  And if you look at the math trace - then there's more returned to the battery during the oscillation phase than was delivered in 'on' phase.  But the actual question is WHERE does that positive half of each oscillation come from.

This is because you are simply not understanding the fact that the signal you are seeing across the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal coming from the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs that are acting like an AC oscillator.  "AC-coupled" means that there is no DC current flow through the current sensing resistor, all of the DC current flow is going through the function generator.

At best, what you see across the CSR might be an indication of the battery current, but that's all you know.  The battery current is flowing through the function generator and your DSO is not looking at it so your average power calculations are invalid.

The issue is not going away and that's why I called the marked-up image of the pegboard, the "Pegboard of Doom."

With this knowledge I can now articulate the proper "LEDs of Doom" configuration for you in negative oscillation mode:

1.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the CSR.  Both will light up because of the AC signal from the AC output from the AC-coupled Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator.

2.  A pair of back-to-back LEDs in series with the function generator output.  Only one LED will light up indicating that current is flowing clockwise through the circuit and the battery set is discharging.

The days for your proposition are numbered.

MileHigh