another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[PhiChaser]

Hello again all,
Rosemary, I hope you don't consider me a loose end in this conversation but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.
I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge.
(Would love to see the video!)
Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so. They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.
Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?
I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist. Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).
And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary, but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?
I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.

Kindest regards,
PC

[poynt99]

Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I can and will replicate and demonstrate your measurement. And just because I can, this does NOT "represent an overunity result". Once I proceed to demonstrate the CORRECT measurement, it will confirm that YOUR measurement is erroneous.

[Bubba1]

Rosemary:

I didn't realise there was a time limit, so before you go, let me write a few things down.

I still think that you misunderstand classic theory.  I would love to know where you get your information, so I can read it for myself.

I have done a little research, and the books that I have read all say roughly the same thing about electron velocity.  In a copper wire at room temperature, the RMS velocity of the free electrons is about 117,000 meters per second.

Are you thinking about electron drift, which is much slower, and occurs when there is a dc electric current in the wire.  A 16 gauge wire (approximately 1.3 square millimeter area) carrying a steady direct (not AC) current of 10 amperes would have an electron drift velocity of roughly 0.4 millimeters per second, which is not very fast.

Lastly, I would like to ask: Do you really think scientists over the last 200 years have not been able to come up with a theory that explains observed behavior, such as NOT taking 30 minutes for a light bulb to turn on, or a power station NOT running out of electrons?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Derrick,

... but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.

Yes.  I see your point.  If I don't convince either of you that we have a claim for Poynty's prize money - then, we really should, as you propose 'throw in the towel'.  Cease and desist.  Own up to defeat.  It makes very good sense.  Especially as there seems to be no point in relying on mere experimental evidence to prove well argued measurements and results.  Science should, in terms of your proposal here - be determined by your opinion and Poynty's opinion.  I'll consider that proposal very carefully.  Certainly - on the face of it - you both appear to constitute a representative majority.  And as the claim is essentially frivolous - with no possible value to society in general - then - no doubt - I'm rather imposing on your good time. 
 

I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge. (Would love to see the video!)

If you could be satisfied by the evidence of a video on this then you'd be unique amongst our forum members.  When, in the history of these forums, has any video satisfied anyone at all - of experimental evidence of over unity?  If you could advance just 1 example where this has satisfied the criteria for a claim - then I will gladly release a half hour run - which would be time enough to include all 4 examples that are included in our paper.   

Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so.

WHAT?  If you're trying to make me believe this then I'd need to ignore those multiple proposals where I continue to test irrelevant criteria into perpetuity.  I assure you that EVERY RELEVANT proposal of a test variation - has ALSO been tested.

They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.

You're generalising Derrick.  Rather broadly I might add.  And those 'errors' that you reference are based on WHAT?  Poynty's unique proposal to simply invert our probes?   He's right.  That would iNDEED - upend our argument.  That would 'cut it'.  So would his extraordinary corruptions of the standard measurement protocols that he applied rather recklessly to that 'paper' of his - as he refers to it.

Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?

BS?  Derrick?  That's strong language.  And what 'strange scope oscillation?  Do you even know what you're talking about?  Dear God.  If this is the level of counter argument then I'm wasting my time.  What you're proposing would require pure magic.  I keep saying this.  We are NOT magicians.  No-one in the history of science - has ever been able to separate a current from its source and managed to keep it flowing into perpetuity.  It would require properties in matter - that no scientist would ever seriously propose.  Not even if that current flow comprised electrons. 

I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist.

I see this now.   To propose a thesis that conforms to the standard model - yet extends it - is 'yammering' - IF it is also accompanied by the FOLLY of experimental evidence as PROOF of that thesis.  To use mere experimental proof to determine a thesis would most certainly therefore CORRUPT science.  What was I thinking? 

Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).

I do not have an interpretation.  Established scientific measurement protocols establish that interpretation for me.

And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary,...

Not sure if you're asking that I forgive only some of your bluntness - or or that I must only partially forgive you.  Either way.  There's nothing to forgive.  Your input has been invaluable. On many levels.  But probably not as you intended.

but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?

They're here in South Africa.

I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.

This is extraordinary.  What don't you buy?  That there are any?  Are you seriously proposing that I've 'invented' them?

Let me explain why they don't engage.  Derrick - there is no greater cesspool - than these forums.  It is corrupted - from inception - when 'anonymous' posters propose that anything they say - could ever be taken seriously.  In general - one is accountable for what one says.   It is the measure of a man.  If he claims something - then he 'stands up to and makes that claim' PUBLIC.  Exactly where do any of those anonymous 'posters' that HOWL their objections in the wake of our claim - WHEN DO THEY EVER OWN UP TO THEIR IDENTITIES?  Therefore they are NOT accountable.  Therefore they can say anything.  The abuse of these forums will be perpetuated while those who subscribe are reluctant to both OWN UP TO WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR.  It is EXTRAORDINARY.  Who cares what an anonymous anybody THINKS?  It's IRRELEVANT.  And it is ENTIRELY irrelevant what any member thinks - until they are prepared to STAND UP and claim it.  They don't.  They're cowards.  When forums are conducted on the basis of complete exposure of those engaging in any discussion - is REQUIRED - then you may see the level of debate and the quality of the discourse IMPROVE BEYOND RECOGNITION. 

My ONLY interest in promoting anything at all on these forums is because I am aware of a silent readership who engage on an ENTIRELY different level.  And it is that for that readership that I write.  Trust me on this. 

Kindest regards as ever
Rosie.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

I didn't realise there was a time limit, so before you go, let me write a few things down.

I still think that you misunderstand classic theory.  I would love to know where you get your information, so I can read it for myself.

I have done a little research, and the books that I have read all say roughly the same thing about electron velocity.  In a copper wire at room temperature, the RMS velocity of the free electrons is about 117,000 meters per second.

Are you thinking about electron drift, which is much slower, and occurs when there is a dc electric current in the wire.  A 16 gauge wire (approximately 1.3 square millimeter area) carrying a steady direct (not AC) current of 10 amperes would have an electron drift velocity of roughly 0.4 millimeters per second, which is not very fast.

Lastly, I would like to ask: Do you really think scientists over the last 200 years have not been able to come up with a theory that explains observed behavior, such as NOT taking 30 minutes for a light bulb to turn on, or a power station NOT running out of electrons?

Bubba - I nearly missed this post.  Regarding the imposition of an electron as the 'carrier particle' of current flow - I ASSURE YOU - this is only a 'model' - or a 'concept'.  It has NEVER been proved. The interaction of one valence electron with another valence electron - as the transfer of energy - through copper wire - is a velocity that is KNOWN.  And that would take considerably more time than instantaneous - which is what we see when we flick a light switch.  The argument that the transfer of current is based on this interaction between valence electrons is THE ONLY ARGUMENT that would wash as a COMPLETE explanation.  Because it would NOT then require the evidence of spare electrons in any circuitry - WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND.  It is the lack of evidence of electrons that is the baffling factor.  And the need of so many that our grid supplies would never be able to supply the required amount to keep our cities lit - our houses warmed.  The question is - WHERE ARE ALL THOSE ELECTRONS?  Because the concept of current flow being the flow of electrons NEEDS ALL THOSE ELECTRONS.  The general rule is that electrons are housed inside or near to their atoms.  They don't float around the place.  There aren't any 'spare' electrons.  They are always FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR.

But Bubba - it's irrelevant what you or I think.  What's relevant is the experimental evidence.  That's really the only science that counts.  And our experiments seem to show that we don't need electrons to account for current flow.

Kindest regards Bubba - I've always enjoyed your input.  Even though we disagree.  And especially since your knowledge of power engineering has much that I can learn from.

Rosemary

Edited punctuation.  And grammer