Follow by Email

Monday, February 28, 2011

81 - here's that test sample example

Dear Reader,

Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.

Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.

80 - the offset to the mosfet

Dear Reader

Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.

On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.

But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.

So. For me this is momentous news.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

79 - CONGRATULATIONS POYNTY POINT

Dear Reader,

AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.

The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.

I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.

Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.

You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.

The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you
Rosemary