another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[evolvingape]

I think this thread is going nowhere until Rosemary will do some new measurements without
the function generator and post new measurements results and a video showing
her new setup with the 555 timer...


So as I am getting too many private complains about her spamming now this thread,
I am closing this thread now.

Rosemary, when you will have a new experiment with the 555 timer , the battery tests and a new
video and measurement results , just contact me privately and then I can
open up the thread again. Until then , just work on your setup and make new videos
and document it only with the 555 timer and forget the function generator whiich puts energy
into the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi All,
Rosemary Ainsley wanted to do some battery drawdown tests together with user
poynt99so I am opening up again this thread.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: I am not opening this thread again because of the legal threat I received of
her lawyer, but maybe there will be coming some new evidence from these tests.

As I don´t like to be threaten by legal action I might pull the plug again, if this
thread goes nowhere again and close it again and make a backup as PDF and
post it in the Download archive and remove it from the forum completely.

Where is the battery drawdown test data of the NERD RAT COP infinity device ?

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

As you can see when look at the scope shots, those major divisions, indicated by the larger "dashes" and the minor divisions by the "dots" are a bit difficult to see.  If your eyes were as worn out as mine, you would moreso appreciate my comment regarding the difficulty in reading the screen.  Also, I always line up an important feature of the trace with a minor division so that it is easier to calculate from the screen.  For example, I would have lined up the zero volts reference line with a minor division to assist in making measurements.  As well, I would have set the trigger delay or horizontal position so that at least one minor division lined up with a cycle start horizontally, which is indeed done in the FIG. 3, as the start of the first full cycle is on a tick mark (not the cycle that begins at the screen far left, but the next positive going edge).

Just so you know my 'scope reading skills can be trusted, I will read your function generator's period from the screen.  This requires measuring horizontally as opposed to vertically.

Again referring to FIG 3, the channel 3 waveform swings positive, stays there for a time, returns to a negative value, stays there for a time, and then the cycle repeats.  I will count the minor divisions between the leading edge of the positive going transitions and arrive at approximately 16.1 minor divisions.  The horizontal timebase is set to 50 seconds per division as per the "50s" at the top left of the screen.  There are 5 minor divisions horizontally per division, so each minor division represents 10 seconds.  Multiplying 16.1 times 10 seconds, I arrive at 161 seconds, or approx. 2.68 minutes.  I can invert that 161 seconds number to arrive at cycles per second, which equals 6.2 milliHertz, which is in good agreement with the readout of 6.17mHz.  The period of time the cycle is at a positive voltage is approx. 1.5 minor divisions, so the cycle is at a positive voltage for a period of 1.5 tmes 10 seconds, or 15 seconds.  From the 161 seconds of the total time, I can subtract the positive cycle portion and arrive at 141 seconds, or 2.43 minutes as the duration of the time the function generator output is a negative voltage.

So, the total cycle time is 2.68 minutes, the period of time within the cycle that the function generator is a negative voltage is ca. 2.43 minutes and the period of time the function generator is at a positive voltage is .25 minutes (15 seconds).  And, the frequency is ca 6.2mHz

Keep in mind that when reading optically, the values will only be as close as one can count divisions and make an estimate of a partial division.  Hence my discussion regarding the use of cursors.  Cursors are movable indicator lines that can be turned on and moved about the screen with the value equal to the distance between them provided by the scope.  This allows measurements to be made without having to resort to this "old fashioned way" where the divisions, or "tick marks" must be manually counted and a bit of math used to determine a value.  I use the cursors all the time.  But on captures as provided in your papers, any measurements desired that are not provided must be gleaned from the screen using the "count the divisions and a bit of math" method.

If we could agree that the captures are being read properly, it would greatly assist in substantive discussions regarding the data that your captures reflect.

PW     

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

The point to all the 'scope related discussion is this.  Documents are often provided that include scope captures or screen shots.  Although the included text may contain information or measurements the author believes are most important to their discussion, there is often a weath of additional data related to those captures or screen shots that is not discussed.  As they say, a "picture is worth a thousand words", and for us "electronics guys", a multi-channel 'scope shot provides an entire chapter's worth of reading.

It is that additional information contained within those chapters, completely related to the papers you present, that I was attempting to discuss with you. 

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Picowatt

If you wish to assert that the voltage during the on time of the duty cycle - and across the shunt - is 12 volts then that is entirely your right.  Feel free.  It is NOT correct.  Not according to my own expert advices.  We all know that the voltage across the battery is DC.  Therefore you cannot possibly assert that the voltage across the battery is offset by -172 volts.  Yet you do.  Unlike the obvious requirement for the battery to be DC coupled we also know that the voltage applied by the signal generator is AC.  Therefore you need to refer to the offset value.  Yet you won't.  So you must do as you wish.  Unfortunately it is NOT correct.  But there is nothing to stop you asserting that you are right.  And by the same token I know that I am right.  Our paper has been vetted by real experts in the art who do NOT - like you - hide behind an internet identity.  And they have NONE OF THEM found reason to complain about the representations related to the that Gate voltage. 

And while I greatly appreciate that lesson in the art of reading the screen display which is very kind of you - it is also, nonetheless, somewhat more elementary than even I require.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
I've downloaded the screen shot again for those who are trying to make head or tail of this argument.

[TinselKoala]

 







(You don't stand a chance, PicoWatt. She has real experts who don't hide behind an internet identity............ but they sure do hide good somehow, because WE HAVE NEVER EVEN ONCE SEEN OR HEARD FROM THEM DIRECTLY, only by reference when Rosie Poser doesn't understand something but wants to pretend she does.)

"those who are trying to make head or tail of this argument"
The only person trying to make heads or tails of this "argument" is you, Rosemary. I don't think there is a single person reading this thread that doesn't understand PicoWatt's several perfectly clear and correct explanations of your scope shots to you. And they all will agree that PW is right and you don't understand what you are talking about.

If there is ANYONE who agrees with Rosemary on this topic they really REALLY should make at least one little post in support of Rosemary's position, with references and checkable citations. Because really, Rosemary needs a little help and support here. ANYONE?

I know there are people reading this thread who think they know how to read a scope. COME ON you silent lurkers. WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSEMARY?

TURN ON YOUR SCOPE and see for yourself, Rosemary. You don't even have to try to read and understand the operating manual. It is as easy as powering it up and twiddlying some knobs. The offset value will appear in the box, no matter what waveform or AC-DC coupling or channel impedance or ANYTHING. AND: the offset value will always be equal to the DISTANCE, measured in volts according to the channel's setting, from the SCREEN CENTER GRATICLE LINE, to the little underline marker under the channel number displayed at screen left.

WHETHER THERE IS A SIGNAL DISPLAYED OR NOT.

The numbers indicating "ofs" in the channel settings box indicate this trace displacement, nothing more. The TEK doesn't even display the offset in numbers unless you dig for it. But it always ALWAYS displays the offset by the location of the channel markers on the left side of the display.

Remember the 25.6 million Joules "calculation" that was so wrong it was ridiculous, yet took three or four people chiming in for literally WEEKS before she finally had to admit her errors? I do. And this is another case of the same garbage. Rosemary is defending a wrong and indefensible position, and the  only thing that she can come up with in support of her case is "experts who don't hide behind internet identitites" but who are nevertheless invisible and silent.... except in Rosemary's dreams.

And as far as PW's elementary lesson is concerned: Rosemary has been asked similar questions in the past and has NEVER provided an answer that indicates that she has the slightest idea about reading values off of the traces themselves. She has always resorted to numbers in boxes, and doesn't even realize how to use the scope's cursors to give her those numbers in boxes she so adores.

Rosemary, if a waveform has seventeen peaks per 8 and a half  major ticks, and the timebase is set to 0.2 milliseconds per division, what is the frequency of the waveform? Please show your work.

(This little problem can be COMPLETELY answered in less than 60 keystrokes, well under one line of text.)