PW and Rosemary,

May I interject in your exchange?

FTC and TK have shown that there is a discrepancy in the circuit schematics in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf and ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf.

In the former, Q1 is labeled as the right MOSFET. In the latter, Q1 is labeled as the left MOSFET.

Rosemary, which diagram indicates the correct positions for Q1 and Q2-5 relating to the claim?

The circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf, or the circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf?

Note ITEM 11. It's clear that you use AC coupling at least some of the time.

And..... for the LeCroy traces in your "paper"... you don't NEED to use AC coupling because you aren't even displaying the right trace.

The POINT of my demonstration of AC coupling was to illustrate how one can use larger vertical gain settings to display more detail in the PORTIONS OF INTEREST when the absolute voltage levels aren't needed. But Rosemary is so paranoid that EVERYTHING has to be about her. Again... this shows that she knows nothing about using oscilloscopes except how to turn one on and how to read glowing numbers out of little boxes.

And that's why she doesn't believe my demonstrations. There are no glowing numbers in little boxes, so how could anybody do anything at all?

Your "modest little claims" are lies and mistakes and aren't modest at all, you hypocrite.

 And there is NOBODY ANYWHERE preventing you from performing any one of several different tests except you yourself. JUST IGNORE ME if you don't like what I'm doing.

IGNORE ME and do your battery rundown tests.

JUST DO IT. I've managed to do a LOT of whatever you want to call it while we have been having this useless conversation.... why haven't YOU been doing anything but avoiding the issue?

I know why. And the rest of us "guys"  know why too.  You have never intended to do any kind of test that has the potential for actually falsifying your claims. You've had OVER TEN YEARS to do it, and you are still just yammering about stuff that you know very little about.

PW and Rosemary,

May I interject in your exchange?

FTC and TK have shown that there is a discrepancy in the circuit schematics in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf and ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf.

In the former, Q1 is labeled as the right MOSFET. In the latter, Q1 is labeled as the left MOSFET.

Rosemary, which diagram indicates the correct positions for Q1 and Q2-5 relating to the claim?

The circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf, or the circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf?

Hi Poynty.   It makes not a blind bit of difference as it comes to the same thing.  But the Q2 on the right of the schematic has been corrected and replaced on the left on a corrected paper submitted for review.  This was pointed out by the editor and corrected.  But either way - as TK has shown - it gives precisely the same result.

Thanks Poynty - if you can correct the copy on your published - then do so.  If not - it really doesn't matter.  It doesn't constitute a misrepresentation - but an erroneous transposition - as picowatt explained.

Kindest regards,
Rosie 

@.99,

Please do interject when you can!  I have been operating under the assumption that Q1 is the single common source configured MOSFET and that Q2 (or Q2-Q5) are the common gate configured "parallel array" MOSFETS.

I do not know if you have read thru all this, my condolences if you have, but specifically, I was asking about an apparent discrepancy in the first paper Test 1-3 scope shots.

Referring to the first paper, in Fig 3/Test 1 and Fig 6/Test3 the scope shots seem to indicate that during the positive voltage portion of the FG output, there is more than sufficient gate voltage applied to Q1 to turn it on, but the Rshunt trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.

In Fig 5/Test 2, the indicated gate drive as well as the indicated current thru Rshunt are in very good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet and in this test, Q1 operates as one would expect and predict.

I can only assume that Q1 was defective or somehow disconnected in test 1 and 3 as per the data provided from the scope shots.

Any comments from you with an alternate explanation would be most welcome.

PW
 

@Rosemary,

It seems a bit of a contradiction that you dismiss all of TK's efforts as meaningless and deceptive, but then reference his work regarding the operation of the two schematics with the MOSFET's labeled differently as proof that it does not matter how it is labeled. 

Am I correct in thinking that Q1 is the single MOSFET and Q2 (or Q2-5) are the paralleled array?

I glanced at the second paper and thought it was describing an alternate circuit set-up.  Please confirm that the Fig 1 schematic in the first paper (Experimental Evidence...) is indeed the correct schematic.

PW

FTC,

In terms of saving threads in PDF format, you simply use your browser to "print to PDF". Of course you need some PDF program installed, such as PDF Creator to do so. Also, you need to do this for every single page of the thread, so you would end up spending some time on this and merging a number of pdf files afterwards.

The job would be made a little easier if you go to your profile settings, Look and Layout, and set your "posts per page" to 50.


.99

Hello powercat

Always nice to be reminded how anxious you are to get us to prove our battery draw down tests.  Believe me so am I.  But I think we should dedicate this thread to an exercise in 'trollmanship' as applied to those such as yourselves.  My prize would be to see it include some actual raw data from TK's DEBUNK courtesy his Tar Baby.  Sorely lacking.  All we have are a series of claims about how he has done this - through twenty video downloads and a report.  Or it may be 20 pages of report and video downloads.  The report is not available...YET - as TK puts it.  Hopefully it will be - in the fullness of time.  Otherwise I may post my results and TK will come in from the rear and CLAIM that they're incorrect as he can't duplicate them.  That would be a shame.  Let me - at its least - have the benefit of seeing where the bar is set.  Then I'll have a 'target'.  And if that means that TK qualifies for Poynty's over unity prize - in his name or in Humbugger's name - and we don't - then so be it.

And I think it's long overdue that the full force of the troll technique be entirely exposed.  Otherwise it can be used again and again.  And that would not be in the interests of progressing over unity or new energy or anything at all through open source.  I'm rather committed to the fond belief that this is still not only possible - but very desirable.  Open source is certainly our only voice for progressing a science that has been widely branded 'pathological'.  Our media wont touch this with yours.  And even a small voice is better than no voice at all.  Else we'll all, forever, be at the mercy of handful of objectors who have an easy time of it when they decide to dismiss scientific evidence.  Thus far they've managed this very well.  And the losers here include the public in it's widest and global sense of the word.  And that probably includes you too. 

Unless - God forbid - he's actually trying to imply that we have NOT got COP infinity.  Or indeed - any efficiency at all.  Not sure what he's claiming.  Not ... yet. Golly.   

Rosie Pose

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 and avoiding doing any new tests.

In all the years that you have been making these claims not one person has ever successfully matched your claims.