another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

2/continued

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

I have NEVER been concerned with the 'size' of an audience.  That's your department.  And with good reason.  Your subscription rate on your own forum is rather sad.  I think the public are rather tired of all that repetitive self-absorbed nonsense - flaunted as 'higher knowledge'.  It's essentially a bit too dry.  I doubt that there are many who are that concerned about my views either.  Ever.  But it doesn't stop a stream of correspondence that I get.  So there's SOME interest.  But.  It's not a popular digest.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

I'm not sure Poynty?  Certainly if you and Gravock and MileHigh and TK and Humbugger and others are counted in that number I'd say that the dozen or so of you obviously don't cut it.  Certainly NOT when I have the entire strength of the standard model behind our thesis and our experimental evidence.

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY,

I agree.  But the problem is in your definition of CORRECT.  This is another little exercise that I'll detail later - which I KNOW will conform.  Then INDEED - you'll agree.

AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES.

This is actually funny.  Here I was thinking it was YOU who had overlooked that Q2S thing.       You've got to laugh Poynty Point.  It's really rather funny.  And all the time I thought you'd seen it.  Again, as MileHigh puts it.  'lololol' 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

3 continued/

FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY.

Again.  All I can say is that you're AMAZING.  You asked us to perform a test which we'd done.  Surely you don't want us to simply go on and on repeating everything you DEMAND - when there's so little sense in it.

YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER,

Again.  I'm still laughing.  It's preposterous.  I have over 230 tests completed and over 560 downlaods and they're all available.  Anytime you want.  Call for some data.  I'll show it.  We've got loads.

AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

This falls into the category of an ALLEGATION.  So.  Unless you show us where it's flawed - I'm afraid we're inclined to dismiss this as another attempt at 'scraping that barrel'.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

4 continued.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES.

Not actually.  What was presented was the evidence  The measurements related to that evidence is confirmed as detailed in that paper.  The applied protocols conform to standard requirement.

THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS
YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM.

We ALL, that is the collaborators, the most of the scientific community find that the evidence conforms to your own.  And that is NOT as you're now trying to present it. 

GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

For my part I'll pass on this.  My interests are in the theory.  BUT.  The collaborators are MORE than competent at this, considerably more than yourself.  And it's their endorsement that I depend on.  Not yours.  After all.  You REFUSE to even evaluate the evidence on offer.  How scientific is that?

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

NO. Absolutely NOT.  Not until you manage a single cogent argument against our data.  Then I'll sit up straight and take notes.

Which, leaves me in the unhappy position of putting on record that you either need to evaluate the evidence that we've presented - in the context in which we've presented it.  Or acknowledge, by default - that you owe us your prize money.  And I would be most anxious to get hold of this.  God knows.  I could make a donation of it to someone with experimental skills so that they could advance over unity. 

LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

[PhiChaser]

Hello again PhiChaser
We do disconnect the battery.  There is no question that the battery is not able to deliver energy.  Again - read that paper.  We propose that the battery is playing a passive role.  I'll see if I can find the extract.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication

Were does it say you disconnected the battery and it kept working?!?

And that was proved by our test that we conducted with the use of capacitors.  In other words, for that oscillation to be that robust and self-supporting  it also needs access to the potential difference at the battery supply.  It does nothing to the battery voltage itself.

How?  How does one expect a battery to play any part at all in the oscillation - when it's not even connected to the circuit?

Good question! I didn't say it did. Your circuit diagram DOES have batteries connected to it.

If you're proposing to put those batteries in parallel...

Nope, didn't propose that. I propose just taking current FROM one battery to supply the 'connected' part of your circuit and pOUT to ground, or another battery, or anything else BUT the other side of your battery.

If you entirely disconnect the Drain rail - or positive terminal - then how does the circuit material take advantage of the potential difference that we've determined is required?

You said it powered itself, not me...

The potential difference in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery.

Right on.

But it is NOT DISCHARGING CURRENT.

Shazam!!! There is where things get interesting. Okay, I get that.   

And this because there is some aspect of electric current flow that has been overlooked.

What I see is a function generator connected to an interesting mosfet circuit with some resistors and powered by batteries... (Just curious: Are your results the same if you use a .25ohm resistor instead of four 1ohm resistors in parallel?)
 

I can only assure you that we have NEVER recharged the 6 batteries that are now powering our circuit.  That's now over a period of nearly 18 months I think it is.

Now THAT is worthy of study, no doubt about that. HEAT = WORK. Free heat = free work.

We have anomalous test results that require detailed and thorough research to a level of expertise and budget that none of us collaborators can afford.  Therefore we have put all this evidence in a perfectly clear paper for this to be evaluated by experts. 

Perfectly clear? If it was perfectly clear WHY is this particular discussion going on for this long??? (My own contribution notwithstanding..) As far as experts to research your findings, why don't you go to your local college and find some grad students to look at what you've got. My point is don't just look here...

The problem is that Poynty is posing as an expert.  And that is dangerous.

If he works in the field for a living, I would say that would make him a professional. An expert in the field of OU? Not sure there is such a thing. I suppose that if he has tried his best to duplicate your circuit (and everything else that came down the pike) and hasn't had the same results, then you two should collaborate to figure out what the deal is. I can see you're both smart enough to know we're on the same team... (At least I hope we are...)
Again, my take on your circuit Rosemary: If you have stumbled across a circuit that generates heat without ever discharching your batteries then is seems like COP=INFINITY... Hmmm, that is a pretty bold statement!
Get on with your bad selves!!!!
Kindest and all that...
PC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Were does it say you disconnected the battery and it kept working?!?

In the paper?  The introduction to the second part states

'The oscillations are robust and they represent a current flow that continually reverses direction.  This results in a wide swing of the battery voltage that climbs and falls, well above and below its (here referring to the battery supply source) rated capacity.  Also of interest is that there is no circuit path afforded for this discharging period of each cycle within the standard reference, as its path is blocked, both by the transistors' body diodes and the negative signal applied at the transistors' gates.'

But I've just had a cursory read through the First Part.  You're right. I can't see a direct reference to this.  I'll need to re-read it. THANK YOU PhiChaser.  If it's not stressed then it may be as well to do so.  I'll check through that paper later today and with my collaborators.  It reminds me how valuable is Open Source.

Good question! I didn't say it did. Your circuit diagram DOES have batteries connected to it.

When a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - and if those transistors are working - then what has happened is that the batteries are disconnected.  That's not speculative.  That's FACT. That's what that switch does.  It's either 'on' or 'off'.  Think of it as a light switch.  But an amazing switch that can turn on really, really quickly.  The question is ONLY this.  If Q1 is 'off' is Q2 then 'on'?  In other words are we simply allowing the current to flow through another switch?  We can certainly claim that the batteries are NOT connected at Q1.  But?  Are they still perhaps connected at Q2?  Definitely doable BUT ONLY PROVIDED that the switch at Q2 has a full path to conduct that current back to the battery.  But.  It doesn't.  It's also OFF.  To take the analogy further - its connection to that battery is BROKEN.  Technically it CANNOT enable a flow of current from that battery.  There is no connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative - during this period.  That's as good as leaving the switch 'off'.

However, just in case we've made a mistake - we build another circuit - take OUT Q2 and simply apply a negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  NOW.  NO QUESTION.  The batteries are DISCONNECTED.  That switch if 'off'.  And what we found is that the oscillation STILL persists.  And NOW?  Hopefully you see this PhiChaser.  The battery is NOW unarguably DISCONNECTED.   And, because we still see that oscillation - then?  Wherever it may be coming from - it ain't from that battery.  This isn't an obtuse argument.  It's very simple and very simply proved.  That was the point of those series of questions that spanned about 10 pages of this thread.   Firstly Poynty missed the fact that there was no connection at Q2S.  Then, he proposed is that there's an 'on' moment and an 'off' moment - so that there would be a kind of two step - dance step between switches.  But he's wrong.  We're all familiar with the shape of the waveform from a standard switching circuit.  And if the battery is permanently connected - then we know what that waveform looks like. There would be absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that oscillation. Then he proposed that we were lying about that test using just the one switch.  That's always his fall back. 

It worries me that you didn't follow this in those arguments outlined earlier to Poynt in this thread.  If you're reading here and clearly you're reading carefully - then how many others have made the same assumptions you have?  Poynt's last argument was based on the fact that the transistors operate in 'flip flop' mode - or something like.  I countered then that oscillation would NOT BE POSSIBLE.  Because then the battery would then be continually CONNECTED.  And it would also continually discharge energy through either Q1 or Q2.  Back to the light analogy.  The light would stay on.  Which means that there could not be any oscillation at all - certainly not to sustain the second half of that waveform.  And that's not MY argument.  It's the inevitable consequence because that's what those transistors do.  If they're opened or 'off' - they can't conduct current.  If they're closed or 'on' they do conduct.

The only time - historically - that this waveform has been seen - is in a parasitic oscillation - which is the hellish result of paralleled transistors.  BUT even then - that oscillation has NEVER been seen to persist over time.  Ours does.  It persists for the duration that there's an applied negative signal at the gate of the MOSFET.  So.  We can validly claim that we are generating a robust current flow from somewhere.  It is self-sustaining.  It can cook the element resistor.  And it sure as hell is NOT from the battery supply.

I'm ending this post here.  I'll pick up on your other points later.  Hope this clarifies that really important question.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Swapped paras around for emphasis