Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 524193
  • *Total Topics: 15608
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 720379 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2130 on: April 11, 2012, 04:01:42 AM »
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'

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2131 on: April 11, 2012, 04:06:51 AM »
Your full of shit Rosemary!

I am asking you who your experts are, my name is Robert Mason, as you very well know and have always known.

I SAY YOUR EXPERTS DO NOT EXIST!

I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason.  I'm impressed that you disclose this.  Thank you.  And I apologise if I should have known this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2132 on: April 11, 2012, 04:15:12 AM »
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2132 on: April 11, 2012, 04:15:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2133 on: April 11, 2012, 04:19:02 AM »
I had no idea that your name was Robert Mason.  I'm impressed that you disclose this.  Thank you.  And I apologise if I should have known this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ok Rosemary,

I will leave you alone from now on.

There is nothing more to be said.

RM :)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2134 on: April 11, 2012, 04:45:55 AM »
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2134 on: April 11, 2012, 04:45:55 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2135 on: April 11, 2012, 05:06:32 AM »
@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?

@Rosemary: I find SHOUTING easier than BOLD GLOWING RED, your favorite form of emphasis. Especially when dealing with someone as thick headed and hard of seeing as you are. Do you think suddenly things are going to get better for you on April 12? Try this: stand in a closet and talk to yourself. Do not under any circumstances let anyone in, especially those who are asking you why you are standing in a closet talking to yourself. That's what it's going to be like for you after April 12th. Do you really think that suddenly, all your lurking supporters will breathe a sigh of collective relief that the Trolls MH, FTC, .99, and TK have finally been censored, and they will come out of the woodwork with their successful replications, magic function generators, and scopes that work differently than the manufacturers believe? I don't think so.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2136 on: April 11, 2012, 05:12:41 AM »
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 :o Why should you even suggest this?  :o 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
 :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2136 on: April 11, 2012, 05:12:41 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2137 on: April 11, 2012, 05:15:05 AM »
Quote
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?

There you go again Rosemary. Word salad, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, lies. Back to MY question: where is YOUR evidence of these phase shifts you demand that I show.... even after I show them in a video and in still photos?

Again: lesser amplitude trace is the oscillations at the battery terminals, and the greater amplitude trace is the oscillations on the CURRENT VIEWING RESISTOR, exactly the measurements that YOU are multiplying in your LeCroy math traces in your paper, and showing the exact same "phase shift" that you claim I do not show... and AGAIN you have crammed your foot even deeper into your mouth than ever before.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2138 on: April 11, 2012, 05:23:12 AM »
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2138 on: April 11, 2012, 05:23:12 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2139 on: April 11, 2012, 05:26:09 AM »
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.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2140 on: April 11, 2012, 05:44:04 AM »
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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2140 on: April 11, 2012, 05:44:04 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2141 on: April 11, 2012, 05:51:39 AM »
And MileHigh I LOVE your posts.  Always a pleasure to answer you.  Somehow I get it that your posts are not as MALICIOUS as your 'friends'. Perhaps it's because you use better English.
TK:I am also curious to know what the 2.34324 MHz means.  In looking at the DSO capture you can see that it is capturing 500 seconds and it can store 500K points (I assume per channel).  So that makes sense to see that the "1kS" on the display corresponds to a sampling rate of 1 kHz.Note that means that the oscillation waveforms are grossly undersampled because we know the oscillations are in the 2-4 MHz range.  The DSO in this case shows the negative oscillation mode "gate" signal is at 6.17 MHz.  Personally I would want to double check this because of the nature of the setup but let's assume it's right for now.
You're absolutely right MileHigh.  But the number of samples per the LeCroy is actually 500 000.  Over an extended period which applies to that first test - we certainly have an 'undersampling' - or better put - a reliance on an 'average'.  But that average is also correct - as shown in the average DC value over the batteries.  It's well within the margins of errors required to evaluate that waveform.  But well done for being the only one to point out anything valid at all.
Even through the waveform is way undersampled, in theory "Monte Carlo" methods could come into play here and the "VV" calculation is actually legit.  But I personally would much prefer to do a "VV" calculation on a tiny tiny sliver of the waveform with at least 8X Nyquist sampling, and try to line up a perfect number of cycles, to see what the "VV" calculation would say in that case.  I am not sure if the scope can sample in the 50-100 MHz range though.
We have another sample of precisely this - which is also included in that paper.  Take a look.
Going back to the subsampling in the DSO capture, I am just not comfortable with a "Double Monte Carlo" "VV" calculation.  I have never played with a DSO and explored what happens when you are subsampled so I am just guessing.In a way this is all academic because the battery "voltage" is a fake-out.
So much good sense and then this?  How is the battery voltage a 'fake out'?  It most certainly is NOT.
You have to be aware of a pattern:  Instead of trying to engage and understand the function generator current flow issue, you are belligerent and put up a fight.  Instead of trying to understand how you read voltages off of the DSO and engaging and trying to learn, you say that you are going to take this up with your "experts."
MileHigh - give me a break here.  My reference to experts only relates to the question put to me by picowatt - with a repetition that boarded on 'combative' was how it could be that the OFFSET did not correspond to the Channel 3 display of the gate voltage?  I had NO CLUE.  But now I most certainly DO understand.  The waveform across the gate should be AC coupled.  Our machine defaults to DC coupling - required for the analysis of the battery supply and for the shunt that determines the current to and from that supply.  That then explains all.  But somehow it seems that out of the 3 of you - or is it 4 - I'm the only one who understands my explanation.
It's all just you being combative for no reason.  I read PW's discussion of the offset voltages for the DSO and he is absolutely correct - and that's coming from somebody that has barely even used a DSO!  Almost no companies had DSOs in my time.  They were too expensive and probably couldn't store more than 1/1024th the number of samples that today's DSO can store.   :-X
I'm not an expert.  But I assure you that I am well able to find my way around the LeCroy.  The Tektronix not so much.  But then I didn't have that machine for more than one week - I think it was. 
You are just wasting time and energy.  You are talking to experts but you don't want to listen to them and instead you want to fight tooth and nail all the way.  It's the old cliche, you are your own worst enemy.
WHO are the experts?  Picowatt?  Or TK.  And what exactly is their expertise?

Kindest regards MileHigh
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2142 on: April 11, 2012, 06:05:54 AM »
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

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2143 on: April 11, 2012, 06:06:08 AM »
Quote
I was not factoring in whatever is stated by you in the following quote:

I had to LOL about that one!  We need secret decoder rings!

C'mon Rosie Posie you need to shift gears.  Did you see that nice annotated diagram explaining the meaning of the DSO offsets to you that Poynt made?

You have to grok Rosie....  Grok grok grok....  And then thank Poynt for making the effort to explain the concept to you.

Try getting over some small learning humps.  Take some baby steps.

The goal should be to draw up a simple test plan that everyone agrees on and do the actual testing.  You are going to be in shock when the light bulbs dim out sooner than you expect.  We dare you to follow through and prove us wrong!

You know what I have said... We are not mindless guppies swimming against the glass in a fishbowl.  Logic and reason have to prevail.  When you say stuff like, "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."  it's mindless guppy talk.

Do you want to draw up a test plan and then do the dim bulb testing?  If you do you desperately need our help.  You need an epiphany and you have to open up and engage and try to learn.

Right now you are inside your own fishbowl and don't realize how you are being perceived.  You have to engage and be civil and express a desire to learn.  Without that you are toast!

That's my last try.

MileHigh

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #2144 on: April 11, 2012, 06:14:59 AM »
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

 

OneLink