another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Tinselkoala:

Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.

Yeah, Good to see that the Q amplification theory is already tested and according to you claims Working !!!!
Can't wait to build my MRA now...
According their claims successful MRA was  reproduced by Joel McCLAIN & Norman WOOTAN and Gregory HODOWANEC...
I have designed to have Q = 10 in load the Q is only limited by the saturation of the core...
If the core would not saturate, the circuit would have a Q of 7900  in unloaded state !!!


Yeah, it's so exciting now ! 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok.  Now.  As a summation.  Poynty has dismissed our claim based on HIS claim that there's a commonality at the source rail that then applies a positive signal directly to the Gate of Q2 when the negative signal from the signal generator is applied to Q1.  It's that 'flip flop' condition that TK referred to.  My counter argument is that IF this were the case then that positive signal at the source would, in turn, REPEL the NEGATIVE signal from those collapsing fields.  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  You can't pick out one condition and then ignore it in another.  But ACTUALLY the argument goes deeper yet.  It involves a discussion of the standard concept of how current flows and - indeed - what is it?  I won't bore you all with our proposals on this.  You know them.  They're in that second paper of ours.   

In any event - in order to confirm his own counter proposal - he first needs to IGNORE that wild swing of the battery that simply cannot be explained if the battery was indeed connected at either Q1 OR Q2.  Unless of course he could argue that the circuit was conducting upwards of 72 000 amps per second per battery.  And that's also assuming that he's using a 20 amp hour battery and not the monsters that we're actually using.  Which, obviously would take that amperage flow to the outer reaches of our stratosphere.  You see the problem?  It is the REQUIREMENT to dismiss anything in reach - as rudely as possibly - that possibly smells of an over unity result.  And it's never enough to just dismiss the claim.  It requires a parade of abuse that your average citizen would be shy to expose - privately OR publicly.  Nor is there any attempt at any kind of discussion around any pertinent evidence.  The discussion is CLOSED.  And I put it to you - that this is PRECISELY the point where our forums are CORRUPTED.  And how our nay sayers get away with INTELLECTUAL MURDER.  How is anyone ever to progress anything at all - when the measured evidence is IGNORED or, alternatively, DENIED?  Just can't be done. 

Which is sad really.  As reasonable discussion would probably add some valuable development of this energy source that we're all of us so interested in.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edit.  I need to stress this.  That curious oscillation - that is perpetuated for the duration that a negative signal is applied at the gate of Q1 is the absolute PROOF that the energy that is being delivered in that circuit is from an alternate supply to the battery supply source. Which is also precisely our object in using that circuit configuration for our analysis.

another edit.  Which means that Poynty Point STILL needs to evaluate our evidence in line with standard protocols.  OR PAY UP. 

[poynt99]

...and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.

The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF, and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting). I've analysed the mode where Q2 is active and Q1 not. In this case, the FG offset is set to the NEGATIVE side (offset knob pulled and turned ccw), such that the FG output is never positive enough to turn Q1 ON, but because Q2-G is connected to the FG negative, this does turn Q2 ON (two negatives make a positive wrt Q2's V_GS).

Is it possible that the two of you are arguing over a misunderstanding about the FG's output?

I'm arguing that Rosemary does not know how to read a diagram (she can't see the common connections I listed), nor does she know how MOSFETs operate.

Incidentally Rosemary, a correction to your paper; you erroneously list the FG model as this:

IsoTech GFG 324

The correct model number of the FG used is this:

Instek GFG-8216A

You're welcome

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I wonder if I could impose on any one of those three readers that Poynty Point actually talks to? Rather cryptically, I might add.  That's during those brief spells that he's not rather publicly trying to horsewhip REALLY old women.  Someone needs to explain to him that we are all indeed VERY grateful that he's proposed that 'correction' to our paper.  DELIGHTED to see that it's the only proposed correction.  And, under usual circumstances I, and indeed, ALL the collaborators would gladly oblige.  But we would then need to pretend that we were using an  -   Instek GFG-8216A.  Our model is - in fact a IsoTech GFG 324.     

Incidentally Rosemary, a correction to your paper; you erroneously list the FG model as this:

IsoTech GFG 324

The correct model number of the FG used is this:

Instek GFG-8216A

You're welcome

.99

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Right,

Please post a link to the user's manual or glossy, or web page advertisement for the GFG 324. Or better yet, post a pic of your test apparatus used for the data etc. in the paper.

The unit you used in your video demo was the one I mentioned, the Instek GFG-8216A. Isotech does however make the same model as Instek, i.e. in the 8200 series.
http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html

If you've changed FG's since that time, then my mistake, however I've not found a model 324. I believe 324 is the model number for your LeCroy scope.

First pic is from your video, second is from ad.

.99