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

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 Members: 83535
  • *Latest: Fritzman

  • *Total Posts: 514364
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 249247 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« on: August 24, 2013, 08:20:03 AM »
Rosemary Ainslie has now reportedly found the "lost" Quantum Magazine apparatus, the single-mosfet circuit that many of us began researching in 2009 or before.

She has made a handful of posts today in which she severely misrepresents and even lies blatantly about my own statements, findings and involvement. Some of the lies she told today are of course directly refuted in this video, which I made and posted a bit over a month ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-gokjcDQQ

The point is that the schematic that Ainslie published in the Quantum article CANNOT POSSIBLY produce the duty cycle she claimed to use, and in fact produces the exact inverse. As I show in the video, both the duty cycle and the frequency of the circuit can of course be adjusted (refuting Ainslie's lies made today) and at no time do I say it is a fixed duty cycle that is produced by the circuit.

It is impossible to tell what duty cycle or schematic Ainslie ACTUALLY used.... we know she has lied, made mistakes, and even gotten other people to bear false witness for her in terms of schematics and conditions under which data is gathered. Only good photographs of the apparatus in use, combined with contemporaneous measurements, will allow anyone to know what arrangement of equipment, at what settings, she actually might use at any given time.

The Quantum-17 circuit published under Ainslie's name has been shown many times, unequivocally, to be unable to make the duty cycle she claims. So either she did not use the published circuit, or she did not use the claimed duty cycle,... or both. Either way the paper is false. If she now shows her apparatus to be using SOME OTHER CIRCUIT....  or she shows that the apparatus makes a different duty cycle than she has claimed.... then the article is false and must be withdrawn, just as her other false "papers" have been.

If she chooses to claim that the 555 timer is irrelevant.... then she must explain why, when the 555 is removed, the circuit is then exactly the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit found in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2013, 08:42:03 AM »
@Mark Dansie:

I see that Ainslie has fired off another "open letter" to you. Please note that she lies to you several times, blatantly, in this open letter, and does not provide any evidence for her lying assertions.

1. I have never said her published circuit produced a fixed duty cycle, or a 90 percent duty cycle only.

2. Mark E's graphs are NOT from simulations, they are from actual builds of the circuit and variants.

3. When other builders here and at Energetic Forum also showed the same thing I showed, Ainslie DID acknowledge the "error" in the Quantum circuit and even "apologised" for misleading people. Now she pretends that only Mark E and I have shown the circuit to be false, when in reality every one who has built it or simmed it knows it is false.

Quote
Poynty and Steve are well able to determine if it is designed to apply a variable duty cycle.  If it DOES show this - then TK - aka Tinsel Koala - commonly referred to  as Little TK or 'ickle pickle' WILL BE CALLED ON TO RETRACT HIS OBJECTIONS IN WHOLE AND IN PART.  As will MARK EUTHANASIUS.  THEN.  Under those circumstances our claims on this subject STAND.  And in the interest of impartial investigation into matters of science - as is widely claimed by both Sterling Allen and Mark Dansie - I INSIST that those retractions be made public.  That - after all - is only fair.


How can I "retract" something THAT I NEVER SAID? It is Ainslie who needs to retract her lies and false claims and misrepresentations of the work and words of others.

No.... what is "only fair" is that Ainslie stop lying about me and what other people have also proven. And I INSIST that Ainslie's apologies and retractions of her PROVEN LIES be made public.




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2013, 03:17:36 PM »
Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2013, 03:17:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2013, 04:29:57 PM »
Thanks for that. As usual, the real information comes from someone other than Ainslie.

Here's what the mendacious troll has to say this morning:

Quote
Here's the link to TK's post. http://www.overunity.com/13743/rosemary-ainslie-quantum-magazine-circuit-cop-17-claims/msg368786/#msg368786  Unlike him we ALWAYS give the required links when we reference anything.  TK doesn't.  He daren't.  Lest you become aware of the FULL complaint against him.

What a liar! I ALWAYS INCLUDE ACTUAL IMAGES OF AINSLIE's OWN WORDS. Yet she cannot give you a reference for any of her absurd claims about me.
Required links, Ainslie? Where is a link to ANY POST where I have ever said you have a non-adjustable duty cycle? Where is a link to ANY POST where I have said you use an 11 percent, or a 90 percent duty cycle? There are none.

In Ainslie's present set of posts she illustrates that she is not only willing to lie blatantly about the work of others and her own, she also DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES or the importance of her false claims in an article that bears her name.


HERE YET AGAIN IS WHAT I HAVE SAID IN REFERENCE TO AINSLIE'S DUTY CYCLE:

The Article presents a schematic and makes claims about its performance. The claims are NOT TRUE. The schematic presented CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed, and in fact makes the _exact inverse_ duty cycle, something that could not have happened by a mere "accident" or typo concerning the 555 circuit.
Either the circuit used by Ainslie was NOT the published circuit that bears her name... or the duty cycle used was NOT the 3.7 percent ON that Ainslie claims. Either way the article lies. There are no other alternatives!



Now.... Ainslie has made many claims about me recently, and in her twisted mind she thinks she can do this without providing any evidence at all, yet she wants me to provide LINKS.... to posts that I have already imaged for you and attached to these posts. More delusions--- Ainslie cannot provide any support for her allegations, yet she ignores all the evidence that I provide. She cannot refute me at all with checkable outside references or demonstrations of her own.

Where are the detailed photographs that Ainslie promised?



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2013, 04:43:33 PM »
Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.

In the first file you linked, YET ANOTHER schematic is presented. Suddenly there is a recirculation diode, that DOES NOT APPEAR in the original report of this experiment and in fact is not even mentioned. Also there is no 555 timer schematic, instead a Function Generator symbol appears.

Once again, we have CONFLICTING and SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT descriptions of the apparatus used in this experiment. The EIT paper even says that the schematic WAS USED.... but where is the recirculation diode in the Quantum schematic? Nowhere. Where is the detailed 555 schematic? Nowhere, it has been suppressed because of the smoking gun it contains.

Note the schematic from this "paper" below. No 555 timer circuit is given, no separate 12 v power supply for the timer is shown,  and a recirculation diode is included, and the claim is made that this was the Quantum magazine circuit: 

I am rolling on the floor laughing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2013, 04:43:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2013, 05:00:00 PM »
Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.

In the second file you linked, we see the diagrams below.

YET ANOTHER schematic is presented as the "quantum magazine schematic". But this one has DIFFERENT COMPONENT VALUES LISTED and also does NOT INCLUDE ANY recirculation diode.

Furthermore, the Block Diagram shows a scope probe attached to the Drain of the mosfet. This location will of course show a voltage that is HI, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF and will show low, near zero volts, when the mosfet is ON.

And of course no waveforms showing Ainslie's "oscillations" are given in either of the "papers".

The Energetic Forum posts have been removed by Aaron and Ashtweth because they found Ainslie's claims to be false!

Note the different component values in the "new" schematic. Can this schematic produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle at the claimed frequency? Which of the THREE DIFFERENT schematics claimed was actually used? Nobody knows and nobody will ever know unless Ainslie posts photos along with her data taken at the same time.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2013, 05:13:37 PM »
@Poynt99 and ANYONE ELSE:

Can anyone show me a screenshot of the "approved" Ainslie oscillations using any of the three DIFFERENT circuits she has claimed were used for this experiment? Or made by use of a FG or other equipment in place of the 555 timer section?

Ainslie herself has certainly never shown any interpretable shots from this experiment.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2013, 05:13:37 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2013, 08:33:09 PM »
Quote
Guys - sadly I can't get those photos up today.  Hopefully tomorrow.  I need someone to operate that camera and he's not available until then.

We will score that as another FAIL on your part then, Ainslie: within 48 hours you said, and later today you said.... now you say "hopefully tomorrow". Well, we will believe it WHEN WE SEE IT and not before.
Quote
Then.  Neither I - nor any of you - have further reason to pay any attention to the absurd nonsense that TK manages to regurgitate - ad nauseum - through pages and pages of RIDICULOUS denials and accusations.  He's lost the plot.  Clearly.  All I can assure you is that the BEST interpretation one can put on those horribly ambiguous terms he uses here...

The Article presents a schematic and makes claims about its performance. The claims are NOT TRUE. The schematic presented CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed, and in fact makes the _exact inverse_ duty cycle,  - is that one must then assume that the duty cycle is NOT 3% ON but 97% ON.  Unless - as is evidently the case - he's applying his own weird definition to the terms 'EXACT INVERSE' which is outside of common parlance.
No, Ainslie. It is YOU who do not understand COMMON PARLANCE, much less the technical language that your chosen subject requires. Take a look at this video made and uploaded in JUNE OF 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
As anyone can PLAINLY SEE, the circuit that is published in the Quantum magazine makes the EXACT INVERSE of the claimed duty cycle, in both COMMON PARLANCE and technical language. Where you believe, Ainslie, that it makes 3.7 percent ON it actually makes 96.3 percent ON, and so on, throughout its frequency range. It makes the EXACT INVERSE duty cycle. When the scope probe is located at the MOSFET DRAIN, as shown in the block diagram above, the probe will indicate HI, or battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF.
Quote
And as for the rest of that preposterous claptrap...

'something that could not have happened by a mere "accident" or typo concerning the 555 circuit.  Either the circuit used by Ainslie was NOT the published circuit that bears her name... or the duty cycle used was NOT the 3.7 percent ON that Ainslie claims. Either way the article lies. There are no other alternatives!'

Actually.  The alternative is that our little pickle is trying to throw smoke over the claim - by quibbling.

You call it a "Quibble" that you have published THREE FALSE SCHEMATICS for the single experiment, YET AGAIN? That's a QUIBBLE? You take the cake, Ainslie. Nobody would believe it if they didn't see it for themselves, which is why I take images of all your absurd posts.

Quote
I shall post those photographs tomorrow. 
Shall you? We shall see whether you do, or don't.
Quote
We most CERTAINLY could and DID make a 3% ON duty cycle. 
Perhaps you did, who knows. What is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN is that you did NOT do it with any of the schematics YOU CLAIMED TO USE.
Quote
And IF Mark Euthanasius and Tinsel Koala are trying to UPEND the claim based on a POSSIBLE misrepresentation of the circuit diagram - THEN WE ALL KNOW WHY.  They have - very obviously - a STRICT AGENDA to deny all over unity results and to SACRIFICE THE REPUTATIONS OF ALL CLAIMANTS IF and AS necessary.  TK's ONLY genius is in his UNTIRING EFFORTS TO DO THE LATTER.  Thankfully - and typically - he over plays his hand.  He's got the finessing abilities of a bull elephant in musk. 

No, mendacious troll Ainslie. We have a STRICT AGENDA, or at least I do, to prevent YOU FROM PROMULGATING YOUR LIES.

And the term is "Musth" not "musk", you willfully ignorant and overweeningly arrogant troll.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 06:56:22 AM »
As usual.... Ainslie insults, whines, bloviates and lies.... but she cannot address the issues and she cannot refute me with checkable outside references, facts or demonstrations of her own.

Three separate, different, schematics claimed for the SAME EXPERIMENT! An altered schematic posted AFTER problems with the original were pointed out! People trying to "replicate" based on a FALSE SCHEMATIC! Ainslie getting banned from forum after forum as her lies and insults emerge!
It's deja vu all over again!

Insult me all you like, troll queen Ainslie... it only makes you look all the more stupid, because you are utterly wrong Yet Again, you cannot refute me and the facts are easy for anyone to check. And it all goes into your Permanent Record.


What is especially hilarious is that so many of Ainslie's little trolling points are utterly and totally refuted in these old videos I'm posting. But she is so arrogant and uncurious that she won't even watch them.... and so she keeps babbling and squawking on about things like "variable duty cycles" and "inverse meaning nothing" when EVERYBODY WATCHING MY VIDEOS knows and understands how utterly and abjectly foolish she is.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 06:56:22 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2013, 07:16:03 AM »
Hi TK
I will responding in full with another Article.Mark E has provided a lot of material for it already.
Can I use some of your materials from here? 
Mark


I am thinking of calling it the Zombie Technology...it doesn't want to die

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2013, 07:51:23 AM »
Shall we take the points one by one?
Quote
Another little 'x' rated communication for our 'ickle pickle' who vociferously DENIES that he is LITTLE - in any sense of the word.

Hello my dear little thing,

Ainslie has never produced, and CANNOT produce, any evidence whatsoever that I am someone called "Bryan Little" or any other LITTLE at all, by anyone except her, and she does it completely deliberately in order to get a rise from me. In short: the very definition of TROLLING.

Quote
While I know that - on the whole - you're entirely untrammeled by any need to impartiality and while I also know that you are not further handicapped by holding a 'cool' head on those little shoulders of yours - I would caution you that we are about to photograph that equipment responsible for the results in our quantum paper.  It's likely to disturb that extraordinary lack of decency and constraint that you manage.

No, Ainslie, I have been asking you to prove your assertions with evidence since 2009, and you claimed all this time that that apparatus was LOST... and even got Donovan Martin to say the same thing. Now you've suddenly found it... and I think that is GREAT. Show your photographs, because they will show either that you DID NOT use the 555 timer circuit you have claimed, or it will show that you DID use the circuit you claimed. Either way, it is going to be bad for you. Of course what I expect is that you will not show any 555 circuit at all.

Quote
Sadly I will show you the use of a variable duty cycle that enabled that rather extraordinary self oscillation condition - that you deny is possible.

Sadly for you... I have NEVER DENIED that self-oscillation is possible, and you cannot provide any evidence that I have done so. Further, I have never denied that your published 555 circuit's duty cycle can be varied, and you cannot provide any evidence that I have ever done so. As I clearly demonstrate in at least 4 different videos since June of 2009, the duty cycle and frequency can OF COURSE be varied.... but the 3.7 percent On duty cycle at 2.4 kHz as claimed IS OUT OF RANGE OF THE POSSIBLE SETTINGS of the schematic published under your name in the Quantum article. Once again, Ainslie, your lack of education and your arrogance and willfull ignorance have caused you to put your foot into your mouth by making up delusions and then protesting against them... .and ignoring the FACTS.
Sadly for you indeed; you cannot provide any evidence for your ridiculous assertions, as usual.

Quote
Which will put paid to about 6 years of hard work in DENYING EVIDENCE.

More bad math from Ainslie. I first encountered Ainslie in early 2009.  DO THE MATH...hint:  it is now August of 2013.

Quote
I see you're MOST anxious to let the subject fall off the page.

I laugh at you. YOU are most anxious that it does NOT fall off the page, drama queen of trolls. That's why you keep insulting me, because you know I will respond! You are a troll, a most amusing one, toothless and a laughing-stock. Nobody takes you seriously!

Quote
  But that won't help you my sweet.  It will be ON RECORD - that your agenda is actually to DENY OVER UNITY - REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD. 
Ever rosy but never your...
Rosie Pose

Records are indeed being made, Rosie Poser, and my agenda is unimportant and irrelevant to the fact that you are wrong, utterly wrong, and you have been proven to be so, many times over.

Shall we continue?

Quote
Hi Guys - for those who follow these earnest communications to our little pickle - aka Tinsel Koala - and allegedly and erroneously referred to as MR BRYAN LITTLE - here's the next item on the agenda.  You'll see for yourselves how critical this is to the general science discussion.

Ainslie, you know nothing of Science, general or otherwise, and you constantly refuse to discuss issues in a competent and respectful manner, as anyone reading your posts can see for themselves. Every time you refer to Bryan Little, you stick your foot deeper down your throat, and I record these instances with great amusement, for they reveal your inner sickness and disturbed soul.

Quote
My Sweet,

I see that you're rather perturbed that I compared your subtlety of argument to that of an elephant in musk.  You prefer the term 'musth'.  Which is a fair and reasonable complaint.  In future I will do so.


Maybe you should have used a dictionary before you started insulting. Oh... wait.... this is another case of Words Mean Whatever Ainslie Says They Mean. Like solstices in July, like Joules=Watts, like "inverse" meaning nothing.

Quote
(Skip a lot of nonsense)

Quote
Especially with your INSISTENCE that a MOSFET is NOT a MOSFET but a mosfet.

A WHAT? What is this MOSFET that you keep referring to, Ainslie? Surely you cannot possibly mean "Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor" because if you did... you would TYPE IT OUT FULLY every time. Bloviating idiot!

You can't address the issue of the THREE SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS you publish under your name, the false claims about duty cycle and measurements and diodes, so you worry about whether or not I capitalize "mosfet". And you don't even realize how stupid that makes you look. Or care! Astounding, but totally par for the Ainslie course.

Quote
And then there's your interpretation of 'exact inverse' which means 'exactly nothing at all'.

It means something perfectly understandable and coherent, and it is even fully correct. Once again you display your willfull ignorance, overweening arrogance and total lack of shame. YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED, but like a toothless zombie queen you refuse to realize it. But every body else does realize it.

Quote
Meanwhile how 'goeth' it with your GRE?  I trust that it too is in MUSTH - and that it 'floweth' out of your mouth unhindered by the activity of your cerebral cortex.  I look forward to seeing yet more evidence - in due course. 

Take care there my dear little pickle and look after your MUSTH.  It's plentiful - but nonetheless RARE.

I always provide evidence for my assertions, Ainslie. Always. But you don't, you just insult and bloviate, call people names and make a greater and greater fool of yourself, in public yet. It's all going into your Permanent Record, along with all those other records of your mendacity, your arrogance, your ignorance and your trolling insulting behaviour... and your false claims of overunity.







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2013, 07:51:23 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2013, 07:55:04 AM »
Hi TK
I will responding in full with another Article.Mark E has provided a lot of material for it already.
Can I use some of your materials from here? 
Mark


I am thinking of calling it the Zombie Technology...it doesn't want to die

Absolutely, Mark, use whatever you like, and I have much more besides. The person who has done the most work on this early version is FuzzyTomCat, and he would be a very valuable contact, has tons of his own material and has the "inside story" on a lot of the scuttlebutt.
Please let me know if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them with materials from my archive.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2013, 03:46:17 PM »
The data from Test #13 is the one they chose to use for the IEEE paper submission, as it showed the most "benefit" as I recall. The images from all the other tests would be nice, but Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 from Test#13 are really the only ones required, as they show the gate drive (CH3) (close to 50% duty cycle and between 200kHz to 400kHz frequency), Vcsr (CH1), Vbat (CH4), and Vdrain (CH2).

Attached is the "100ns" scope shot for that test (Fig. 6 in the IEEE submission).

ETA: Now that I've found Glen's cache of data, here also is Fig. 4:

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586

 

OneLink