another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt. Can I impose on you to READ OUR PAPER.  That way you'll realise that our claim most certainly DOES NOT rely on the fact that MORE CHARGE IS returned to the battery to RECHARGE it.  IF ONLY.  Then we would INDEED be dealing with something that has no relevance whatsoever to standard physics.  We are none of us magicians.  I can't magic energy out of nothing.  What we propose is that the battery supply source becomes a passive component - which adds to the sum of the energy that is delivered by the circuit components during each phase of that oscillation.  Effectively it is providing the continued potential difference that is required to sustain that oscillation.  BUT.  The battery supply source merely RETAINS its potential difference.  I have not seen evidence of a recharge.  Nor have I seen evidence of a discharge.

The fact is that you and your 'friends' have been advising the ENTIRE WORLD that I have some fanciful proposal based on 'Zipnots' as it's described, that perform feats of magic - HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THESIS OR OUR TESTS.  What it DOES have is the rather shameful proof of how little you understand or understood our proposals.  However.  Let me ASSURE you that you are entirely WRONG in those assumptions.  WE RELY ON THE STANDARD MODEL OF PHYSICS.  ELSE - with good reason - you and your 'friends' would be well justified in applying all that scorn.  Now.  I can live with that abuse.  It has no material relevance to our thesis or to our tests.  But what I can't live with is the arrogant assumption that you can not only detract interest from our own technology - but that you all go to such absurd lengths to discount ALL evidence - on the rather reckless and mistaken presumption of authority.  That assumption.  That you are - all of you some kind of representative authority - that ALSO KNOWS BEST.  Patently - your skills and the skills of your 'friends' are somewhat lacking.  And yours and their knowledge is also patently in need of some elementary familiarity with some essentially fundamental concepts related to basic physics.

Now.  I have always assumed - notwithstanding the these concerted and rather bigoted attacks on me and on this technology of ours - that we are, nonetheless - reaching a wider and more impartial audience.  It seems that I'm right.  And that's my mission.  My mission is, to the extent that I am able - to share some rather intriguing insights related to the nature of energy itself.  And I'm not ALONE in that.  I share it with my collaborators.  I share it with many people who I correspond with.  I even share it with some rather weighty academics.  Very few academics I might add.  But that there are any - I see as a kind of triumph.

You see this Poynty.  There are those theoreticians who would drown in circuit analysis.  There are those ace electronic experts who would drown in physics theory.  There are those chemists who would drown in both fields.  And there are those in both fields who would drown in chemistry.  One is NOT automatically STUPID because one is not familiar with any one or other of these branches of one single field of science.  And, for some reason - you have been at some considerable pains to capitalise on my acknowledged ignorance of electronics to JUSTIFY all that abuse.  Fag the detriment to my own name.  Just look at what you manage when you destroy a dynamic new field of investigation.  The more so as that topic is opened for general discussion - under what one assumes is the rather hygienic and well aired platform of 'OPEN SOURCE'.  One doesn't get a foot in.  Because there's a parade of opinions from highly opinionated members who seem to need this daily dose of abuse - to feed their rather over inflated pride and their over inflated egos.  It does science no good.  And frankly, the sooner this abuse is addressed and challenged, and the sooner it disappears from these forums - the better.  Because OPEN SOURCE is actually - the only way to go with ANY NEW TECHNOLOGIES related to these energy breakthroughs.  Else we'll forever be grid bound.  Or we'll be at the mercy of monopolists.  And that is very far from promoting 'the greatest good for the greatest number.  On the contrary.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Then perhaps you can explain what it means exactly when YOU MEASURE and boast about a significant NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then perhaps you can explain what it means exactly when YOU MEASURE and boast about a significant NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER?

I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit.  What on EARTH are you on about?
Regards
Rosemary

[poynt99]

I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit. What on EARTH are you on about?

Indeed? What is the "computed negative wattage" above?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Indeed? What is the "computed negative wattage" above?

This is now getting absurd.  HAVE YOU EVEN READ OUR PAPER?  That explains the measurements.  We measure that the amount of energy delivered by the battery - related to the amount of energy returned to that battery together with the evidence of some SIGNIFICANT heat measured over the resistor - indicates that there is more energy returned from the circuit and circuit components than was first delivered by the battery supply source.  This with the caveat that we are applying STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS - which may not be appropriate.  So.  The question in that paper is this.  ARE WE DEALING WITH A STANDARD ENERGY SUPPLY?  The paper is open ended.  It draws no CONCLUSIONS save those that are MEASURED according to the measurements that are REQUIRED by standard physics.

I'm not sure what you're missing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary