another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as a general reminder to you all - here's the extent of our claim.

We are able to generate a continuous current flow through a circuit with a battery that is DISCONNECTED.  We measure an energy that is, therefore, NOT sourced from the battery and that is THAT robust that it is able to take water to boil.  What is more, under certain subtle switching frequencies it is able to operate in booster converter mode.  And what is more - the current through the circuit moves in both directions in the form of an oscillation that appears to BREACH the restrictions presented by the transistors.  And what is more - this is NOT a 'leakage' as implied by Curious Chris because the level of amperage is that high that it would nuke those transistors.  Nor is it the result of capacitance as Poynty is hoping to make you believe - again because capacitance cannot be responsible for inducing that continual flow. 

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE - which, as we all know, has NO RELEVANCE to the standard model.

THEN.  We have detailed all this in a paper - which we are given to understand - will be published in due course.  MEANWHILE - Poynty Point and his minions have been going to considerable trouble to IMPLY and ALLEGE that I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.  Rest assured.  If I have none - then my collaborators most certainly do.  And their qualifications are FAR HIGHER than Poynty Point's qualifications.  He needs must paint me as a FOOL.  He is welcome.  But my foolishness is NOT the issue.  At issue are the DETAILS OF THAT CLAIM.  And unless he can refute them LOGICALLY and with the use of standard protocols - then he is ducking and diving with the outright intention to DENY our claim and DENY his need to award a prize - BOTH.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Again - an edit for emphasis.  LOL.

[aether22]

And as a general reminder to you all - here's the extent of our claim.

We are able to generate a continuous current flow through a circuit with a battery that is DISCONNECTED.  We measure an energy that is, therefore, NOT sourced from the battery and that is THAT robust that it is able to take water to boil.  What is more, under certain subtle switching frequencies it is able to operate in booster converter mode.  And what is more - the current through the circuit moves in both directions in the form of an oscillation that appears to BREACH the restrictions presented by the transistors.  And what is more - this is NOT a 'leakage' as implied by Curious Chris because the level of amperage is that high that it would nuke those transistors.  Nor is it the result of capacitance as Poynty is hoping to make you believe - again because capacitance cannot be responsible for inducing that continual flow. 

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE - which, as we all know, has NO RELEVANCE to the standard model.

THEN.  We have detailed all this in a paper - which we are given to understand - will be published in due course.  MEANWHILE - Poynty Point and his minions have been going to considerable trouble to IMPLY and ALLEGE that I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.  Rest assured.  If I have none - then my collaborators most certainly do.  And their qualifications are FAR HIGHER than Poynty Point's qualifications.  He needs must paint me as a FOOL.  He is welcome.  But my foolishness is NOT the issue.  At issue are the DETAILS OF THAT CLAIM.  And unless he can refute them LOGICALLY and with the use of standard protocols - then he is ducking and diving with the outright intention to DENY our claim and DENY his need to award a prize - BOTH.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Again - an edit for emphasis.  LOL.

It is an extremely impressive result!

I want to replicate it, here is how I believe it works roughly.

The circuit due to various design configurations is either aetherically charged (pretty common) and or has an aetheric current.
With the sudden increase of the electric current the magnetic field grows outwards, as it does so it takes the energized aether (orgone) with it, and electrons are readily transported by moving aether.

This is why Tesla and many since have found electrons being sprayed around the place, also this aetheric shockwave creates a gravity like impulse if it is changing (accelerating/time varying) which is how Morton and Podkletnov both created forces from spark gaps (they both refocused it).

As the current ceases the magnetic field collapses dragging the aether in and carrying with it flux from the environment that can induce energy into an inductor.

Now going back to the aether and electrons, there are many instances of electrons flying through the air, or closing open circuits despite voltages/energies being insufficient and the resulting damage (and danger of beta radiation).

This explains why the current moves through the MOSFET's without damage, I can give examples of others who have found such results, essentially though electrons carried in this way appear to tunnel and slip through with little damage.

Now I am not clear on where the flux is coming from in this circuit, it might be from the inductor coupling to some other part of the circuit or it might be from the environment into the inductor.

I am interested in replication of this circuit, but Rosemarry, you seem more intent to argue with trolls than give details of the right circuit to replicate.  Also is the inductor and resistor one element or 2?

Hopefully I am just being impatient.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

The fact is: the day who someone will SELF-LOOP the FE gen will be able to win the prize...
I don't even understand why there is not this condition !!!
The ultimate PROOF of the OU existence is SELF-LOOPING., removing that F****NG battery put a buffer cap and let's go to the infinity and beyond...


Even me, that I am an aficionados of Rotoverter and resonant like stuff, I keep a skeptic mind...
I will never applying a device that it can't be self-looped...
Even in my personal theories/Invention I still skeptic...
So if you want to prove anything, try self-loop please...


SRM.

[poynt99]

Once again, nice try Rosemary.

You've proved nothing at all I'm afraid, other than you can whip up a hell of a bullshit salad when you're hungry enough.

I would encourage you to stick to the arts...you've been gifted in that regard, but in technical aspects such as those you've clumsily ventured into, you're hopelessly lost...actually.

My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.

Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly Poynty Point.  You really need to learn that trick of 'arguing' your case - and not just spewing out a whole lot of gibberish - in the hopes that they sound 'clever'.  And it's not a 'nice try'.  No effort involved.  Just a tedious amount of time. 

But, nonetheless.  Let's go over those arguments - one by one.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply
.    Standard oscilloscopes and sundry volt meters are able to measure a negative voltage at a battery supply source
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative.
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence.
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.

None of which constitutes a valid scientific argument - although as an excursion into a wild illogical kind of lunacy - it most certainly has merit.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie