Ahh.. now I think I understand why Rosemary has suddenly begun discussing my height and calling me a "little" person. She thinks that one of her minions has identified me.
Unfortunately, as anybody whose wits HAVEN'T ended can hear for themselves, that "little person" from Texas can be heard speaking on some of the famous Steorn videos, and his voice and speech patterns -- and indeed, height and moustaches -- may be compared with mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtqYcLR4skU

And Tinsel Koala - disabuse yourself of any assumption that I must ANSWER you about anything at all.  You're grasp of the issues at hand are absurdly irrelevant and inappropriate to science.  And your manner of address is that vulgar and that abusive that it is inappropriate to forum guidelines let alone to the any reasonably civilized communication.  And like all psychopathic bullies - you rely on this rather overblown method of 'attack' for your ordinance.  Your bullets are blunt TK.  We are not here at Sunday School - relying on your opinions.  There is only one absurd player here that I can see.  And it's you.  What are you thinking?  That I must answer your questions?  Dear God. 

I am under NO OBLIGATION to engage in any kind of conversation with you - other than of my own choosing.  I do not work for you.  I owe you NOTHING but my contempt.  And I have that in bountiful supply.  Would that you were bigger.  Sadly.  You suffer from the 'small man syndrome'.  And we all know where that takes one.  Just look at Hitler - for God's sake. Now.  Why don't you rally your forces?  Why not get MileHigh or Glen to post another 8/10's of another page.  Or just do that yourself.  Lest our readers be reminded how utterly ridiculous are your alleged 'REPLICATIONS' and your absurd 'ANALYSES'.  All those EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS.  LOL.  And here where I write LOL I actually mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

added

Also, I have repeatedly offered my TinselKoil for testing ACCORDING TO YOUR SAME PROTOCOLS for comparison purposes. Your measly switched mosfets--if they are indeed switching at all instead of just staying on all the time -- pale in comparison to the power levels I am able to achieve on SIMILAR INPUT POWER... that is, apparently none--- as your idiotic kludge. And I'm willing to prove that assertion JUST AS SOON AS YOU PROVE YOURS.

LOL.  If I didn't know better I'd think you're in competition with me.  Which is hugely amusing.  The only competition that any of us have is with Cold Fusion and the inevitable march of nitinol technologies.  Whatever is being done on this little circuit of ours rather pales in comparison.  I'm only plugging this thread to have a reasonable chance to ASSURE our readers and members that Over Unity is most CERTAINLY breachable. That's got to help.  I'd have thought?  And then.  There's the kicker.  We think we know WHY it's possible to breach this elusive barrier.  All you can manage in that rather tiny little mind of yours TK is the deluded assumption that anything that you do or I do can possibly matter in the light of REAL PROGRESS happening all over the place.  You're way out of step here.

But nonetheless.  Press on with your absurdities.  As ever - let me assure you - I am under no obligation to comment on your work.  Certainly NOT while it is so utterly inappropriately IMPOSED on this thread when it's not even RELEVANT to the issue.  What a ridiculous little man you are.

Rosemary

there you go TK

You've got another recruit.  Definitely a kindred spirit.  He shares your love of inappropriate invective and a similar level of spite.  Highly appropriate for your team.

Rosie Pose

If your 'NERD technology' was for real you would not have to go through all this crap so put a sock in it.

If your  'NERD technology' was for real we would have figured that out by now so put a sock in it.


 If your  'NERD technology' was for real you would not have to defend it to these lengths so put a sock in it you attention w h o r e!

It's the worms crawling out of the woodwork.
R

My dear Powercat.  This is simply not true.  But if it helps you to think this then feel free.  I'm not sure that I care either way.

Rosie Pose

Your cavalier attitude towards the truth is so unscientific it makes you uncredible, and until you retract your ridiculous claims I will continue to warn people not to expect any free energy from your circuit.

You are the only one saying this statement is not true.

How many years would you call a fair chance ? Stefan has given you three threads and still nobody can produce excess  energy from any of your circuits.
Interesting how you're attacking the majority of people who post here and calling them trolls, when you are the one wasting everybody's time with your BS claims.
In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.

Rosemary, as anyone reading can tell you, the one refusing to carry on a meaningful discussion is YOU.  You are claiming a monetary prize based on the claim that your batteries have not discharged measureably even though you have done 18 months or more of testing like the one where you made the erroneous calculation AND CONCLUSION. For evidence you have offered only oscilloscope data WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS and .... words.

Several people posting here have proposed perfectly acceptable tests of your claims, and you find any reason you can not to perform them. Fine. I WILL PERFORM THEM, if I have to reproduce your crazy circuit down to the last error and cliplead color. When I do, you will no longer be able even to claim your prize, because I will have gotten there first. Not that I'm going to be claiming any prizes based on false claims, you understand.
So YOU HAD BETTER HURRY UP and stop maligning me and get cracking. AGREE WITH .99 or come to some acceptable compromise that ELIMINATES YOUR SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION, and soon.

I see nothing wrong with the test I have proposed. Use an arrangement that precludes charging by the FG: I have shown how this can be done, by one of many methods. Personally I would use an optoisolator. Maybe someone can explain that to you; you will still get your oscillations (I think) even with the optoisolator preventing the FG from providing power. Then have six fully charged batteries. Select three and set aside. Run your circuit, make soup or tea, HEATING A LOAD preferably to boiling, since that's easy for you, for a decent time on the other three. Let's say two or three days. Video using a timelapse webcam -- twenty dollars for the camera and free software. Your grandchild can probably help you here. Then take those batteries and the ones that were set aside and do a "dark bulb" rundown comparison, again on timelapse video. It would be best if you use low-capacity batteries, but if you want to use your 40 A-H ones, fine. But you will have to charge them conventionally first.

First bulb to go dark..... loses. Repeat the test a few times, randomizing and conventionally recharging the batteries before each test. Three out of five for the big win.

And not a single instrumental measurement or interpretation need be done by anyone anywhere, except for the "smart" automatic automotive battery charger deciding when the battery is fully charged.

I think .99's test is better and should be performed as soon as possible. But for a test that would convince ANYBODY (if done honestly) do mine. Harvey's actually, since I think he first proposed it waaay back when you were annoying the Energetic Forum with your nonsense.


OH... and I take back what I said about you being an ineffectual old woman. In fact I think that you are a genuinely evil withered and dessicated crone, the very definition of an under-the-bridge dwelling troll, getting off on making people react to you. Comparing me to Hitler--- and using my alleged "shortness" as "evidence" in support...... you really are an evil crone.

Bear in mind, please.... the owner of this thread lives in Germany, and might be able to illustrate one or two differences between me and dear Adolph. Or are you as naive about history as you are about mathematics, physics, electronics, publishing standards, editorial requirements and science in general?

As one of the 3 occasional viewers of this soap opera, I've been struggling
with trying to find an analogy for what's going on here. It's not a debate,
it's not all that scientific (some is), it's not respectful (some is), it's not very
productive, and definitely not dull.


It's not bullies against a weakling.
It's not MIB against the courageous.
It's not the little guy fighting TPTB.


But you know what really fits? Comedians mocking religions.
On the one side are groups determined to believe everything from the distant
past that was created to control them, and on the other side a group of
irreverent souls that know they have a goldmine of material that can't be
defended that's just waiting for the perfect punchline.


I can now follow this better knowing the stage it's on.


tak

OK... recall that the FG in the Ainslie demo video is set at 10 Hz, confirmed by the scope trace timebase setting.
My scope won't be interpretable over the internet at 10 Hz. My earlier photos were taken at 1 kHz from the FG.

In the first photo:
Here I've set the FG to drive the circuit at 100 kiloHertz. The scope's timebase is set to 2 microseconds per division. The bottom trace , the common drains, is DC coupled, 50 volts per division, and the baseline is at one full division below the bottom edge of the blue tape (sorry, I should have changed the tape, will do next time). (Perspective makes the tape look higher than it is; I mean the scale division line a FULL division below, not the one right at the tape). So to my eye the straight-across level looks to be about 20 volts. And these look like 8 periods per 2 microseconds, or about 4 MHz... higher than I expected.

In the second photo:
Here I've set the FG to drive the circuit at 100 Hz, but I've cranked the timebase up to 1 microsecond per division. Channel settings the same as before.

(the FG was set to zero offset for these tests, the FG trace is set to 5 volts per division)

It looks to me like the oscs are at about 4 MHz in any case regardless of the stimulus. I'll try to get a precise value with the Philips counter if it seems important.

(It's also important to realize that this is NOT a true 2 beam scope; it's a 2-channel scope, and here it's being used in "alt" mode to display both channels at once. This can result in incorrect time synchronization between the two traces sometimes, so try not to read too much into the displayed phase relationships. Know your gear ! I wish I had my old Philips dualbeam scope here.... )