OK.  Starting with this post from TK.

(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.)

This has been answered. I have been urgently advised by many of colleagues that it is a waste of time engaging in any discussion on these forums as they're 'toxic'.  I have persisted.  But ONLY because I am entirely satisfied that our readers are considerably more discerning than is assumed.  And I need to ensure that all aspects of this technology are put squarely in the public domain which they now are.  The fact that they're  challenged on such spurious grounds - is immaterial.  They're HERE.  And they're public.  And last but not least.  I see a real requirement to  to advise our members and readers that over unity has most certainly been breached.  That it's denied by these 'big' players is to be expected.  They're actually only big in their investment to DENY over unity.

Now.  Back to TK.  If you're referring to picowatt's explanation as to how to determine the frequency then rest assured.  I am well able to understand picowatt's explanation.  My grandchildren could.  It's a miracle of clarity.  But it has nothing to do with the issue. And I do not need open support from anyone at all.  Unlike you 'big players' - as MileHigh puts it - I trust I am well able to fight my corner.  I must admit that I struggle with the sheer volume of your posts - but I think, on the whole, I'm managing very well.  One doesn't need to be that clever to expose the sheer nonsense arguments that you rely on.  And I rely on you posting that nonsense - so that I can gauge the lengths that you go to to keep denying everything.  And then as ever.  I rely on our readers to see if they can possibly detect any level of impartiality in any of your posts.  God forbid that ever happens.  Because then you'd get some level of credibility.  Anyway.  Ever onwards...

I have - indeed - been ' 'twiddlying' those knobs' - as you put it.  The offset - as applied by the machine - is ONLY based on its reference to zero.  Nothing at all to do with the 'CENTRE GRATICLE LINE' as you put it.  And presumably you mean graticule.  This falls in the same bracket as your insistence on word 'mosfets' when you mean MOSFET's.  And that's NOT a plowman's apostrophe as you put it.  It is simply a correct application of punctuation.  In any event.  That center 'graticule' line is to enable the user to arrange the display of waveforms as required.  One can scroll left or right to include or exclude more or less waveforms.  I'll give you some downloads when this exercise is finished - to show you its actual function.  And the little 'underline marker' that you're referring to against each channel number is the zero crossing line as applied to the DC coupling of that channel.  On an AC coupling then that same line moves to the center of each peak to peak waveform across whatever waveforms were recorded on that screen.  And the bias is determined when there is more voltage calculated above or below that center line.  So when you write this...

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.

... then you are displaying a level of ignorance that is abysmal or a level of misdirection that is obscene.  Take your pick.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Poser
edited
changed move to 'more'

Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.

TK.  The early and sincere effort of one of my colleagues to address your 'type' was attempted on that hate blog that's dedicated to me.  The response was that loaded with slander and invective that we all concurred.  Better to stay out of it.  Lest anyone's identity be associated with that or indeed - THIS level of engagement.  It's a decision that I ACTIVELY promoted.  And you CITE nothing.  Your continually refer to distortions in a program of disinformation - that is also ENTIRELY belied by its excess. 

Regards to you TinselKoala

Rosie Pose

This post is GOLD

Rosemary, where is YOUR evidence for "phase shifts" that you are talking about? I see none whatsoever in anything you have EVER posted lo these many years.

One would need to be an amateur of dimensions that even I exceed TinselKoala - let alone an 'expert' such as you proclaim to be - to analyse power dissipation against a waveform.  There is invariably some level of phase shift.  And being inductive it's impedance will vary.  Both need to be factored into any power integration and it's complex and fraught with required error margins.  Far better to establish it's dissipation levels empirically.  As we do.  Therefore, indeed, there has NEVER been any waveform downloads taken across the load resistor.  Our protocols OBVIATE the need.  WHY do you not know this?  Aren't you the self declared EXPERT?  One of the 'BIG" boys?  And then.  Back to my question.  HOW do you manage to show us a waveform across the resistor that is perfectly in phase? What's the 'trick'?  TK?  Where do you manage to misrepresent SO much?  Is it all in that 'dark' light? 

And I don't give a hoot about the identity of your experts. I don't even care if they exist any more. I just want SOMEBODY somewhere anywhere to chime in and tell us that we've been wrong all this time, that the scope manuals and Agilent documents are wrong, and that YOU ARE RIGHT about your assertions re offset and function generator current, for just two examples.

This I cannot explain other than my personal preference to 'fight this fight' alone.  You see it shows you up better - as the bully that you are.  I enjoy knowing that I - as a rather forgetful and somewhat senile member of the opposite  - am yet able to fend off your 'incursions' with considerably more skill than you can manage.  You SHOUT.  I DON'T.  You need to SHOUT.  I have no such need.

PRODUCE ANYBODY WHO WILL TELL US THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. Because you have PW, MH, .99, me, and others who are telling you that you are wrong, and the strange thing is... WE ALL CITE PROOFS and REFERENCES that can be checked. And all you can do is to "assure" us that your "experts" haven't complained. Well... the reviewers of your papers are experts and they complained---by dumping your papers into the wastebasket.

I trust that as soon as I have Harti's 'go ahead' to start a new moderated thread - then I will be able to disclose all the authorities that are required.

Kindest regards to you again TK.  Your contributions, as ever, are invaluable.
Rosie Poser

This post is TK's work - off the cuff and on the fly.  LOL

No, it's an expression of your own wilful ignorance and refusal to communicate clearly and in standard terminology.

Nothing 'non-standard' about the need to factor in 'phase shift'.  And there's nothing wrong with the terminology. What's lacking is your understanding of phase shifts.

Are you talking about the phase relationship shown in Paper 2, Figure 8?Are these the phase shifts I'm not managing to show?

NO Why should you even suggest this?  Why don't you know?  Why do you even ASK?  Frankly TK, if I didn't know better I'd assume you have no CLUE how to determine the level of energy dissipated at a load.  Who would have thought?  And through pages and pages and pages and threads upon threads upon threads - you've been DEBUNKING.  So MUCH.  EVERYWHERE.  I would strongly recommend you learn how to do power analysis if you're to be given the kind of credit you think is owed to you. 

(For those who are able to understand: The below picture is a zoom of Tar Baby's oscillations, driven by the 555 timer in the standard manner.)The lesser amplitude trace is taken directly at the battery and is shown at 5 volts per division, and the greater amplitude trace is the voltage drop across the CVR, taken at 0.5 volts per division. I have used the "offset" or vertical position controls to overlay these traces on the center graticle marker, hence the absolute voltage values are lost-- but they are irrelevant for this demo.

You say this - and then you SERIOUSLY propose that you've answered anything at all.  At a glance - if I was to determine the power dissipated at the load resistor in the light of the phase angle shift that you're disclosing in that picture to this post - then there would be absolutely NO heat dissipated at the load resistor WHATSOEVER.  Does that comply with the evidence?  TK?  I'll watch the video when I've finished these posts and find out for myself.

(In Rosemary's scope channel boxes, the "ofs" figure would read 0 or close to it.) No horizontal tomfoolery has been applied and the scope is showing the correct phases.

Dear God.  I had, up until now - assumed that you were on a disinformation program.  It seems that you actually believe this?  I know for a fact that you used a LeCroy.  I've seen it in your early videos.

And the normal 180 degree phase difference between a voltage and a current trace can clearly be seen, and additionally a smaller true "phase shift" of a few degrees can just barely be detected, caused by the same effect that will make the integrated multiplication of these two traces right here.... yield an OU result.

I now see your Achilles Heel TK.  You have NO CLUE how to do power analysis.  And you have NO CLUE about phase shifts.  I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER.

I'm leaving in this link - albeit yet another attempt at self promotion.  Because THIS video I really want to watch.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI

Ever Rosier
 

Rosemary,

My apologies Rosemary, but from your response, I see that not only can you not read a 'scope, but as well, you apparently cannot manage to read or comprehend concisely written English word.I have never asserted "12 volts" regarding the shunt.  Nor have I asserted that the battery voltage is, or must be, offset by -172volts.  The only person who stated that the "ofs" numbers must somehow be used in making measurements was you, not me. Your responses are very telling.  I now realize that any attempts to have a discussion with you of a technical nature regarding your papers would be pointless and entirely in vain.I also realize that any discussions of a technical nature "from you" should be considered very carefully and "taken with a grain of salt". You are indeed your own "technology's" worst ambassador ...

Sincerely,
PW

Picowatt - I take it that this is your considered opinion.  And this thread certainly promotes opinions. And no need to apologise for that opinion.  You share it with the exalted company of those such as TK, MileHigh and Glen Lettenmaier.
 
 Kindest regards
 Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

After reading my posts regarding how to visually make measurements from the screen of an oscilloscope, do you now agree that the offset values displayed on the screen next to "ofs", have absolutely nothing to do with making measurements off the screen?

Or do you stand by your original assertion below?  Which is the very first post mentioning those offset numbers by anyone.  If you recall, you were in disagreement with my 'scope reads because I was not factoring in whatever is stated by you in the following quote:

Picowatt

Look again at those screen shots.  You'll see channels 1 through 4 - on the base line display.  It indicates that the display is DC.  Then look at the offset values that follow.  It indicates the PEAK TO PEAK VOLTAGES with their 'bias'.  That's the number to apply to the Channel 3 display as the Channel 3 display is actually and obviously AC.

Regards,
Rosemary

PW

Rosemary,

I'd be interested to hear what your experts say of my explanation. You could print the annotated scope shot out or email it to them.

What is your objection to the annotated scope shot Rosemary?

No Poynty.  You actually wouldn't want me to circulate that.  Or if you do - then you must also know that you're simply circulating a great number of utterly erroneous annotations.  The OFFSET value has NOTHING to do with a 'graticule' reference.  It has EVERYTHING to do with that little line at each channel reference.  It indicates the zero crossing line.  THAT'S IT.  The numbers displayed in the box - relates to the peak to peak voltage which only has relevant to an AC coupled voltage.  Therefore it ONLY applies to the AC input from the signal generator.  The center graticule 'vertical' is to help the user to select the appropriate waveforms over whatever period is intended.  Nothing else.  And I can scroll - as mentioned to the left or the right to include or exclude more or less - as required.  The trick is to scroll to give as balanced a display as possible.  And then one simply takes the screen shot from that point.  This is better enabled if one freezes the shot and then adjusts as required to get that sample best represented.  If one takes a shot in real time then one may not have a representative shot of those waveforms.  But frozen or in real time - it still gives an accurate value of the mean averages where they're DC coupled - or the bias where they're AC coupled.  We never 'touched' the AC coupling as our interest is in determining the power from the battery.  And that needs a precise reference to ZERO.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

And...ONCE AGAIN.... I offer Tar Baby to any interested third party with the equipment and knowledge to test it, as long as Ainslie's device is tested alongside, by the same protocols and analyses. I don't even care what they are, right or wrong.... because my ONLY CLAIM is that Tar Baby performs just like Ainslie's device in all significant respects.

SIDE BY SIDE TESTING. I'll gladly send this box of stuff off to anyone for testing, as long as Rosemary does the same, the devices are tested and analyzed the same, and the results are published openly.

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