another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[MileHigh]

No MileHigh.  You'll need to do your own research here.  Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage.  The more out of phase - the less power dissipated.  TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase. 

Actually - let me correct that.  The waveforms shown in that shot of his are entirely out of phase.  I still need to check on the video - if I get around to it.
Again
Rosie

Rosemary, the fact that you are not thinking, and are refusing to take me up on my challenge to you to start thinking, is really most unfortunate.  If you have current flow and there is a resistance associated with your load, then you have power dissipation.  The current and voltage will always be in phase for the resistive component of the load.  You are confusing the concept of capacitive or inductive reactance with resistance.

P = i-squared x R.   You know this formula.

I have no hope.  Good luck on your "moderated" thread.  If we want to respond we can do it on the Tar Baby thread and there will be full cross-pollination.  So the concept of moderation is almost a moot point.

The strange thing is you know you are speaking to people that have worked in electronics and tech for many years and clearly have experience yet you only listen to them when it suits you.  That's Rosieo Poseo "filtered impartiality."

The LEDs of DOOM are glowing off in the distance and the current that lights them is flowing straight through the function generator.  Beware!

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

I have emailed you a copy of the "ofs" annotated diagram to your gmail account.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you choose.

In terms of any responses, please include detailed comments if anyone asserts that the annotations are incorrect.

In summary, the "ofs" indication is not that useful a piece of information. It actually has nothing to do with measurements involving any of the scope traces themselves.

.99

[fuzzytomcat]

@fuzzy::
I see that Evan Robinson, the "page coordinator" of the PESWiki page, has the WRONG DIAGRAM up as the "latest" schematic.
Pretty strange, huh? Maybe somebody should email him so he can correct his error. Also I see that the original Quantum circuit is also published on that same page. And on the Mygeni page... YET ANOTHER incorrect circuit diagram is posted.
That's three incorrect circuit diagrams from a single person... who is now in the Tax Preparation business. Where are the "experts" and "academics" that signed off on that one?

Hi Tk,

Yep believe me Evan Robinson was sent several e-mails to each address that was available, on the Mygeni I have actually signed up but haven't attacked the errors yet just to give him a chance to possibly catch up with Rosemary's circus side show. It is very strange though Rosemary insists one COP>INFINITY device schematic but yet the one in her blog site is wrong, the one in paper titled "Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure" is wrong and now the one at PESwiki is wrong also. There is apparently a huge break down in communication between all the authors of the COP>INFINITY papers and then the YouTube video is a total disaster by all technical engineering standards.

I do think that possibly one of the authors is responsible for the YouTube video and or the editing is Riaan Theron whom might of done the two (2) 3D videos on Rosemary's "dooziedont" YouTube account. Riaan Theron of South Africa a expert, and Rosemary needs some kind of a fancy 3D rendering of the Fu Man Chu Zipperon Break Dancing blah blah THESIS, and he could do it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bsGJhjQIlMo )  there has been emails also sent to him to find out if he was involved as a author and collaborator in the COP>INFINITY papers and video production.

Cheers,
Fuzzy

[TinselKoala]

(sound of crickets chirping)

I think we scared her off. Or maybe they finally found the unsecured computer she was using when she was supposed to be in art therapy sessions.

[picowatt]

So Guys - that's it ..I hope.  Certainly I've finally managed to answer all posts - for a change.  I've got a few more to make during the course of the day and then - with luck I'll be able to operate on a thread that will be under my own jurisprudence.  I don't think there will be any postings on it for a while.  I've got a lot of work to do to get our apparatus built and ready for testing.  And I've got spade work to do to get those  data loggers up.  And I still need to formalise some kind of relationship with our 'arbiters'.  But I reckon one month - and I and you all will be able to finally determine if there's been any validity in anything at all that we've claimed.  I'm personally interested to see how our batteries perform against the Q-array.  Because, quite frankly - I simply don't know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

While it may be true that you have responded to all posts, you have provided few answers of any help or substance to replicators or those reviewing your papers. 

Referring only to the data provided by the schematic and 'scope captures in your first paper, I asked why Q1 was not turning on in FIG 3 and FIG 6, even though it is readily apparent from the 'scope captures that it should be.  Instead of providing an answer, you insist the 'scope was being read incorrectly, which I can assure you, it was not.

Something is wrong with Q1 during the tests referenced by FIG 3 and FIG 6.  Q1 has failed or is not in circuit.  I believe in the tests referenced by FIG 3 and FIG 6, Q1 is in circuit but has sustained damage prior to these tests.  There appears to be additional clamping evident on the CH 3 signal in FIG 3, FIG 4, and FIG 6 during the negative portion of the cycle that is not evident in FIG 5.  This is likely an additional indication of the health of Q1.

In FIG 5, the indicated CH 3 gate drive acheives approx. +6.5 volts and, as it should, Q1 turns on and a current flow of approximately 2 amps is indicated by the CSR trace.

In FIG 3 and FIG 5 the indicated CH 3 gate drive acheives approx. +12 volts and yet, zero current flow is indicated by the CSR trace, which can only mean that Q1 is, for some reason, not functioning.  You argued that the 'scope was being read incorrectly and that it somehow is really indicating only around +6 volts.  Even if this were so, that voltage is still sufficient to turn on Q1, but again, as per the CSR trace, Q1 is not turning on.

It seems the bulk of your observed anomalies or effects are moreso to do with the oscillation phase of your circuit, so possibly the malfunctioning Q1 is immaterial to your claim, or that indeed, it may in the end turn out to be serendipitous.  However, in order to replicate the circuit accurately, this issue as well as a few others needs to be addressed. 

If you are going to have .99's annotated 'scope capture reviewed by someone with a technical background whose opinion you trust, I would appreciate it if you would please print and send this post along as well, and respond with their comments when available.

Possibly .99 can copy this post and email it to you if that makes it easier for you to print.

Thank-you,
PW