another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Let's get back to your original comments here Chris

The answer to this argument is simple.

place some very large capacitors in parallel with the batteries
place a switch in series with the batteries such that when the switch is open the batteries are disconnected from the circuit, but the capacitors are still connected to the circuit.

Start the oscillator. When you are happy the oscillator is running stably. turn the switch off. the capacitors are now supplying the current.

If your circuit is indeed OU then the capacitors should remain charged and the circuit should continue to oscillate. if instead the circuit is UU then the voltage across the caps will quickly dissipate and the cct will stop oscillating.

Where has anyone, ever, in this proud history of quantum electromagnetic engineering - ever been able to isolate an electric current - store it in a capacitor - away from its source - and then use it to continuously supply an electric current?  Are you seriously proposing that we first perform feats of magic where we deplete all potential difference on a circuit - and then expect current to 'magically' ignore this lack and still operate under conditions required in term of inductive laws?  Because, I assure you - that FAR exceeds our claim.  Our reference of that test - in our paper - was PRECISELY to PROVE that a retained potential difference is REQUIRED.  I believe this conforms to the KNOWN conditions required to generate electric current flow.

Therefore - where you state that ... 

If the cct continues to oscillate congratulations. If not the cct is not OU.

in order to first PROVE OU - is somewhat outside our mere mortal capabilities.  We have only determined that current flow carries properties of charge.  We most certainly do NOT claim that this charge can isolated from its source.  ON THE CONTRARY. 

If you believe that capacitors don't support the oscillation due to fundamental differences between caps and batteries you must be able to put forward a cogent explanation of why.

And we most certainly DO propose that capacitors are fundamentally different to batteries.  We proved this precisely by that test.  The batteries retain their potential difference.  Capacitors DO NOT.  Again.  That is precisely why this test was referenced in that paper.

Once you have that fundamental explanation then you can alter the cct to allow for those differences and then make it work using the caps.

If only.      Perhaps you can propose a solution.  That would be much appreciated by not only us - but by the entire global community.  You would, however, have to rewrite science.  We DO NOT presume to go to such extraordinary lengths.  Indeed - we ONLY use standard physics within the standard model.

If you cannot make it work using the caps. then it serves no useful purpose. as long as it needs batteries it will never be considered OU.

Interesting conclusion Chris.  I suppose we could - as you suggest - simply pretend that the retained potential difference in the battery has no value.  It would be a really novel take on energy efficiency.  But, at a stretch - I suppose we could ALL manage this - if we tried hard enough.  Clearly you've set us a good example.

And then to your post script.

I have often wondered if I crack the OU puzzle how would I get the message out. For me the answer is simple. Create a kit, sell it on Ebay with a say 60 day warranty. This lets others test it and validate it for you. If the kit doesn't work you will quickly learn about it in negative feedback and paypal will refund the peoples money.

Feel free.  You know how to put the circuit together.  So?  Try it out and then sell those units.  Personally I'm more into promoting the thesis - which logic somehow eludes you.

Kindest regard,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No, I meant to measure the power into the function generator at the grid input of the function generator, so at the 230 Volts AC side with a digital power meter.

No we've not done this - but I'll attend to it. 

You can build yourself very cheaply NONINDUCTIVE Shunts for high power by using a parallel and serial circuit of
SMD shunt resistors. These are noninductive then.

I have no intention of changing the conditions on the existing artifact.  But I'll certainly do a second build and include these shunts if you require them.  If I can't source them  - then presumably you can.

Lets exactly see the circuit diagram then on this and also a new video with this.
How is the 555 circuit powered ?

I'm afraid I lost my camera on holiday.  I'll be replacing it when and if I get an insurance refund and that may take a bit of time.  However - the circuit is described in the paper and in the circuit diagram in Peswiki.   And the 555 can be powered by an independent supply or by connections straight to the supply batteries of the apparatus.

Will the circuit then also put out these power levels without any scope or measurement gear connected ?

No.  Here we have a problem.  We tune it according to the value in the math trace of the LeCroy.  It's a critical measurement.  Can you access an equivalent scope?  If not then I may be able to rally.

Just the 12 Volt car batteries and the circuit alone ?

Another small problem.  We may actually need more batteries that your stipulated maximum.  Is this negotiable.  It would be a shame to take the trouble to demonstrate this without the energy required to take water to boil.

Also you should use a professional battery capacity meter so see the
remaining energy still stored inside the batteries.

It would be nice to do a full evaluation of the battery.  I agree.  I have NOT gone that route because there's a warning on our batteries that their efficiency is compromised if they're opened.  So I've left them sealed as I can't afford to let them degrade.  They're way outside my budget to replace. Again.  We can make a plan.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited.  Added the word 'source'.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OMG!
Rose, how many times can you get this wrong?
JOULES IS NOT POWER!!!!!

I agree with you Bubba.  Always have.  Joules certainly IS NOT POWER.  It is the measure of power dissipated. 

Rosemary

[CuriousChris]

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.
Rather than pay heed to those who wish to help, if they don't agree implicitly with you you denigrate them as fools. The only true fools on this forum are the ones who do not question another's claims.

OU is simple to prove, Pin < Pout. Its not beyond mere mortals. My second form of proof is beyond reproach which is obviously why you ignored it.

You claim infinite OU, Err sorry infinite COP, by that definition your one cct should be able to power every device in the world and still be hardly touched.

I don't doubt you will continue with your rant. Good luck with that. Its a shame because you are obviously very intelligent and your ability with the written word is outstanding. In any other circumstance I would admire you.

CC

P.S.
1 Watt = 1 joule / 1 second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

[hartiberlin]

Rosemary, at least get such a battery tester or simular one,
it is not too expensive.
You can read the customer recommendations on Amazon about it.