another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/..

and use these total maybe 3 US$ SMD shunts to have noninductive shunts and use a battery capacitance meter to show the charge level of the batteries before and after the tests ?

I've also answered this question at length.  Again PLEASE attend to the answer and again - come back to me if you don't understand it.  The use of non-inductive shunts is preferred.  However, they are NOT required.  They are only EVER required if we were dealing with LOW WATTAGES.  We are not.  There is nothing ambiguous about our results.  Therefore we can factor in margins for error that are WELL in excess of what's required - that STILL leave us with values that defy standard prediction.

If you can do these tests and document it in a new video your trust level would rise much more from all readers of the forum...

I trust by having attended to these questions there's some modicum of 'improved' trust.  What you're actually asking is that I show proof of having done these tests.  I'm afraid we did not video tape it.  And nor will I.  It is my experience that videos do NOTHING other than advance suspicions rather than otherwise.  However, having said that - IF you and Poynty and Professor Steven E Jones would consider a video of these and ALL our tests as SUFFICIENT PROOF to our claim that we then get awarded your prizes - then INDEED - I'd be glad to revisit this and tape everything for as long as is required.

ALso finally get rid of the function generator and use a 9 Volts battery to apply the negative threshold voltage level for the oscillation to occur.

Yet again.  WE HAVE DONE THIS.  WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT YOU EXPRESSLY REQUIRE.

Until then I will consider your device a measurement error as I and others have shown you many times.

In the light of the fact that we have done these tests - then may I advise you that you should therefore reconsider that we have ANY ERROR MEASUREMENTS AT ALL.  And while you and others may have 'referred' to measurement errors there is not a one of you that have 'SHOWN' me measurement errors as you state here.

I will also unlock your thread again and you can post again, but probably nobody will further listen, until you will do these measurement improvements to nail down the effects.

AGAIN.  Since I have done those tests?  Then?  Do you therefore guarantee me that all my detractors will now LISTEN to me - as you put it?  I doubt that Harti.  That is something that will NEVER happen.  Certainly not by Poynty Point and his disciples.

You said yourself 3 or 4 Weeks ago, I should lock the thread after you had posted the 2 PDF files.

I did - INDEED - require my thread to be locked. But NOT until I'd concluded the thread with a clear refutation of Poynty's argument.  As it is - I've been in receipt of correspondence from someone who is under the delusion that I have NOT sufficiently argued the 'lack of a path' for that full oscillation.  I see this as IMPERATIVE.  Else all will be left with the assumption that Poynty and Professor and even YOU would be justified in ignoring our claim for your prizes.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited in that glow number for emphasis.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well guys

I need to get back to my argument - or rather I need to refute Poynty Point's argument.  LOL.  When one applies the term 'argument' to anything at all the Poynty presents - it's really just a rather reckless euphemism for a drunken preamble amongst the myriad opportunities presented by science to 'befuddle' the unwary.  Misguide the many.  I've always been of the opinion that Poynty's inclined to substitute huge dollops of testosterone to compensate for an apparent lack in his logical faculties.  Which is very effective.  Glandular excretions are known to replace cool reason with hot passion.  And on the whole it's considerably more engaging.  Even if it then results in an evident lack of a preferred clarity of thought.  However.  That being said, it's still 'just' my opinion.  And it is in no way intended to detract from his general abilities.  It ONLY detracts from his pretensions as a theoretical physicist.  Personally I strongly approve of passion.

You may recall.  My poor little thread was locked - for a while.  Not entirely sure of the reasons for this.  But as a result there's the outside chance that there are those readers here who may have forgotten the thrust of this 'complaint' of his.  Here again, is the argument that he DEPENDS on to REFUTE our claim for his, and for Professor Steven E Jones' - and for that matter, Harti's prize for evidence of over unity.   Golly.    That's a clean sweep of our forum owners and their more prestigious members.  One hopes that I've not bitten off more than I can chew - as the saying goes.  It makes me positively NERVOUS to engage.  But my comfort - as ever - is in a personal reliance on the dependability of our Science Greats and the most of our Standard Model.  It's served us all so well and for so long.  And that way I can relate to known physics to support our CLAIM, where Poynty, bless him, relies on an entire departure from known physics to lend any kind of support at all - to his COUNTERCLAIM.

His early proposal was that there is no significance to the oscillation that is generated on our circuit.  I claim that this is indeed significant.  This because we can generate that oscillation, which is robust and self-sustaining.  And it seems to be responsible for the dissipation of some significant and exploitable heat at the circuit's workstation.  Not only is there all this benefit - but it all 'happens' while the battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit that it cannot discharge any energy at all.  Now.  Here's the counter argument.  He states that there is a continued connection through the gate leg of the MOSFET.  To put this argument to bed I'm showing hereunder a DIAGRAMMATIC representation of the Q-array.  I'm afraid I needed to take license with the conventional depiction of a MOSFET.  This I think was required to highlight the fact that the source leg of Q2 is NOT connected to anything other than the Gate of Q1.  And if you recall the setup.  We've got a negative signal applied to the gate of Q1.  In any event.  Let me see if I can manage that download - and then I'll continue with this 'monologue' of mine.  LOL.

 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok.  I can see that I've downloaded something.  Just can't make head or tail of what it's meant to show.  I'll leave it there pro temp and then get another design uploaded that I can at least see.  Then I'll continue with this argument. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry Guys - I'm trying this again.  Hopefully I'll be able to read it.

Regards as ever,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Still NOT the clearest thing that I've managed.  In any event here's the discussion on the required paths.  The left transistor is Q2 - the right Q1 - as per our standard schematic.  The diagram is a non-standard depiction of the actual attachment of the each of those transistor legs.  Q2 Drain to Q1 Drain.  Q2 source to Q1 gate.  Q2 Gate to Q1 source.

Therefore.  When a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - then the positive is correspondingly applied to gate of Q2.  Q1 cannot conduct current from the battery supply.  Nor can Q2 BECAUSE.  The current from the battery would need to cross from the Gate at Q2 directly to the source of Q1 thereby bypassing it's own Q2 Source leg.  OR.  The  it would need to pass from Q2's source leg directly to the gate of Q1 where there is an APPLIED NEGATIVE SIGNAL that would resist this current flow. 

Therefore, there is no path to enable the discharge of current from the battery supply during the period that a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1.

I hope that's clearer now. 
Regards,
Rosemary

added the word 'not'.