More like in _your_ dreams Rosemary.

We just saw some foreshadowing of the big upcoming tear burst.  You pigheadedly stuck to an incorrect assumption about something you didn't understand and you adamantly refused to listen to anyone.  Then someone 'enlightened' you and now it's abject apologies all around.

Posting #1475 shows the function generator output section.  It's another example illustrating how you are pigheadedly are sticking to an incorrect assumption about something that you don't even understand.  Little Miss Mosfet knows nothing about electronics yet she makes definitive statements about electronics.

So, now that we have seen the foreshadowing, and we see another fail with respect to the function generator, it's just a matter or time.

It's all about the truth Rosemary, plain and simple.  Like I said, we are not willy-nilly mindless guppies swimming against the glass in a fishbowl.  Reason and logic and the truth is infinitely more important than your 'delicious oscillation' fantasies.  The application of knowledge to make our lives better is an important principle worth defending.  That's in contrast to your 'unaware snake oil' magic waveform elixir.  You don't even know that you are peddling snake oil, which makes it that much worse.

The cloudburst of digital tears is building up, we can already hear rumblings on the horizon.

MileHigh

Hello MileHigh.   
Always nice to see you paying attention. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

BTW - when are you going to do that analysis?  Surely this is within your competence?  LOL.  or lololololo - take your pick.
Again,
Rosieposie pose 'eo'.

Hello again hoptoad.  Always a pleasure to see you there.  I've actually being going through your posts which are vastly entertaining and impeccably succinct.  I think you set us all a good example.  Perhaps, given a few more years - I may also learn that art. I'm a notoriously slow learner.  Glad to see that you're keeping your comments appropriate.  I think any discussion would be vastly more relevant than the way the discussions on this thread are going.  And I know those links.  I have to reference them every time I read an acronym.  I fixate on alternatives that takes me ever more removes from reality.  And according to our trolls my own grasp of reality has always been somewhat tenuous.

The reason I went through your posts was that I seemed to recall you undertaking to do our circuit.  Did you get around to this?  If you've got the time or the interest - please let me know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary (That's my sister's name by the way)

Alas, I cannot say I have faithfully reproduced your circuit. Although I did sling together a makeshift facsimile of the circuit based on components I already had available. However, after a very short time of experimenting, I had to acknowledge the pointlessness of any run down tests because my existing supply batteries are actually kapoot,or as the techies would say, FBB. Besides that, the circuit was not really a very faithful replication anyway.

My batteries have no real capacity left and are suitable only for short term low current experiments. Sooner or later I'll have to buy some new batteries. When I do, (finances permitting), I'll probably try your circuit again.

With your novel parallel mosfet configuration, I was unable to produce an oscillation with the mosfets I had available, so I played around with a few different mosfets and eventually got a single mosfet to oscillate, by allowing the gate to float with no connection to it. This method of self oscillation is easy to achieve with low power, high gain fets, with no base connection. Plenty of circuit examples are scattered
throughout the Doc Stiffler thread. However, as I see it, the difference between Mosfets and Fets is the body diode, which is often present in Mosfets. The body diode allows any counter emf (if there is any) to flow in the opposite direction to supply emf. Fets will normally block it.

A time comparative run down test is all I would be able to perform anyway, because I don't currently possess or have access to any decent accurate measuring equipment.

Given everything I've just said, its fair to say that I cannot contribute any meaningful dialogue regarding your circuit at the moment.

Cheers and KneeDeep.

Hello Hoptoad,

Thanks for the update.  I'm actually acutely aware of your skills in this subject - and am sorry you're not able to assemble this apparatus.  We're all the losers - sadly. 

But thanks for trying.  And you're right about the value of those body diodes.  We've actually run a circuit on one of those really slow relay switches - and used a diode across the load to take the energy back to the supply.  Intriguing results - that were also certified by South African Bureau of Standards.  But then we were dealing with fractions of a watt - which always becomes a contestable result.  With good reason.

But interesting nonetheless.  I get it you're chemist?  Am I right?  Either way - I found your comments related to cold fusion very interesting indeed.  It's an opinion that I share - but has not been taken up by our members.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.
Sorry I wrote body diode.  Getting way too old here hoptoad.

You talk about my "pages and pages"... but look at what they consist of. No baseless rants or gratuitous references to Hitler, Mussolini or Savonarola from ME, irrelevancies of the lowest order, but rather I am continually ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN AND  SUPPORT your positions re various things you've said and claimed that are contradictory or frankly untrue. Rather than deal with my important points FOR WHICH I ALWAYS GIVE CHECKABLE REFERENCES, you dodge and weave and post PAGES of your own TRULY IRRELEVANT nonsense, while managing not to answer any of my points.

Imagine how much time and effort we could have saved had you CHECKED YOUR MATH when I first brought it up. But no--- with me and at least three other people here TELLING YOU AND SHOWING YOU HOW YOU ARE WRONG you still continued with your insults and lies about that matter until just today. Now you are forced to apologise.... but you still haven't POSTED THE CORRECT CALCULATION OF YOUR OWN, nor have you retracted the claim made from your bogus calculation:

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.

Here is where you add the same energy twice. You are starting here at a temp of 82 degrees, NOT 16 degrees...you have already counted the energy required to go from 16 to 82 in the first part, now you are trying to add it again.

Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.

Correct your calculation, post the corrected figure, and correct the CONCLUSION based on your earlier WRONG CALCULATION.

To do anything else would be a another lie, Rosemary Ains-lie.

You are talking about testing a circuit in this thread. But you have shown OVER AND OVER AGAIN that you are incompetent to carry out or even interpret such a test. You talk about getting "fractions of a watt" from a recirculating diode attached to a relay... but you totally IGNORE the fact that this is COMMON, KNOWN, and most circuits incorporating RELAYS will include such a diode to protect circuitry from these INDUCTIVE COLLAPSE VOLTAGE SPIKES. You may recall--- or not, I don't care--- that I SHOWED THIS EFFECT using your first bogus circuit: when the external diode was PROPERLY APPLIED, one could siphon off energy from the circuit using it and CHARGE UP A CAPACITOR or EXTERNAL (not the running) BATTERIES with it. And since POWER is a RATE of ENERGY USAGE..... I could take all that energy I stored in a capacitor and discharge it QUICKLY... achieving HIGH wattage levels from that energy.

I say again: You have demonstrated that you are incompetent to design, test, build, explain, or evaluate electronic circuitry. The evidence for this incompetence is distributed throughout this thread. You need to prove that you are competent in these areas, or any test that YOU do... just like the video demonstration... will likely be "fraught" with errors and misinterpretations and frank LIES.

Prove that you are competent... or slide on out of the way and let the people who understand what's happening get along and test your circuit, if any of them actually can figure out JUST WHAT is to be tested and JUST WHAT the claims are.

WE STILL DON'T EVEN KNOW THE CORRECT CIRCUIT based on the info from YOU... we've had to figure it out from your video, IN SPITE of the misdirections, mistakes, and lies contained therein.

REFUTE ME, POINT BY POINT... or just take one point--- WITH REFERENCES to actual factual data. Just as in the math case--- you cannot.

@eatenbyagrue:

I see that you still choose not to answer my direct and polite (I think) questions, so I'll repeat them yet again:

Is there anything you can find in the statements of fact that I've made that is untrue, incorrect, and/or not supported by or checkable with external references?
Is there anything you can find in the statements of fact that Rosemary Ainslie has made that is untrue, incorrect, and/or not supported by checkable external references?

Just how tall are YOU, anyway, since that seems to be a qualification in Rosemary's eyes.

To aid in interpreting the photos from Rosemary's video, here's what the IRFPG50 mosfet looks like, front and back. When looking at the front of the TO-247 case style, with the pins down, the pins from LEFT to RIGHT are GATE, DRAIN, and SOURCE.

When looking at the back of the TO-247 case, the shiny metal area is referred to as the "tab" in analogy to the TO-220 package, which is the standard for lower-power mosfets. This tab is also connected internally to the drain, or Pin 2 the middle pin. So really the mosfet has 4 connections: Gate Drain Source from the pins, and Drain again from the MOUNTING TAB. This can be insulated from the heatsink while still allowing thermal conductivity by using a mica or silicone pad and/or dielectric thermal "grease". If isolation isn't required the mosfet can be mounted directly to a heatsink but thermal grease should still be used.

For comparison I have attached the data sheets for the IRFPG50 which Rosemary uses, and the IRF830a which I have been using... until my ordered PG50's arrive. If you don't have 1000 volt voltage levels, why do you need a high-voltage mosfet in a heating circuit, especially if its Rdss is so high? Oh... I forgot... it's because the IRFPG50 is the Magic Mosfet.

Rosemary claims that her device produces OU performance, based on numbers she (or somebody) has calculated from oscilloscope data dumps and spreadsheet analysis of those dumps. Yet she has shown NO COMPETENCE in actually interpreting or describing scope traces. In fact she's made many errors when trying to do that simple little thing, and she avoids doing it like it was a fatal infection or something. Which, for her "thesis" (actually only a conjecture) it is.

If any test  is to proceed without controversy, it must either avoid measurements (and the possibility of error and misinterpretation) at all, or Rosemary must show that she is competent in these matters. Since she's made so many errors and misrepresentations and misinterpretations in the past, she's got to address this point, by demonstrating that she now knows how to calculate correctly, interpret and display circuit diagrams correctly, use proper construction techniques and normally accepted terminology in her communications.

Let's start here. Rosemary, please explain the following items on this scope trace shot from your Demonstration video from last March.
What are the explanations of Items 7, 10, 11, and 12? What COLOR is the trace indicated by Item 7?  What is the explanation of Item 15? What is the explanation of Item 18?