another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[derricka]

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?[/size]

Funny, but at this poynt, our dear Rosie has much in common with a proton. They would both seemingly go out of their way to avoid the correct answer. 


BTW, if anyone here actually wants the correct answer, feel free to let me know. As a bonus, I'll even toss in some additional information, like, how a MOSFET gate could potentially fool someone into thinking they're getting free energy.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Funny, but at this poynt, our dear Rosie has much in common with an electron. They would both seemingly go out of their way to avoid the correct answer. 


BTW, if anyone here actually wants the correct answer, feel free to let me know. As a bonus, I'll even toss in some additional information, like, how a MOSFET gate could potentially fool someone into thinking they're getting free energy.

My dear Derrick,

I think we'd ALL like to hear more from you.  Long overdue - if INDEED you have the answer.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way - I see you amended that analogy of me from an electron to a proton.  lol  Much appreciated. I prefer to think of myself as being positively charged.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

SO.  Guys, here's the thing.

Poynty denies our right to claim his over unity prize by variously

.  Refuting the claim based on grossly flawed scientific protocols and logic
.  By refusing to engage in a discussion of the claims
.  Steering the focus away from the reasons for his dismissal by simply asking unrelated and inappropriate questions
.  That cannot be answered outside of a full qualification
.  And then sulking because I will not answer them until he explains his POYNT.  IF ANY

So  I put it to you that his mission is NOT to earnestly embark on the evaluation of a claim - as he DARE NOT.  Therefore one can conclude that his prize is simply a ruse to lure the unsuspecting to make their claims.  Then he bamboozles the Almighty himself in a TOTAL rewrite of the standard model - as required - to REFUTE those claims on any chosen pretext.  And his arguments related to that REFUTATION are infinitely variable - as he does not need to adhere to the rules of standard measurement protocols - NOR to that standard model.

Who would have thought?  And all this time - we all assumed that he was promoting and not FRUSTRATING the advancement of science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Derricka,

There's only one here that doesn't appear to know the answer, but it's preferable we let that one person post their response rather than take the opportunity away from them.

Regards,
.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, may I add that I answered his rather ambiguous question as best as it is humanly possibly - adding the required qualifications - lest the answer be considered ambivalent.

Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.

For reasons that only Poynty understands - he is DETERMINED to believe that his question has NOT BEEN ANSWERED.  But that's very much in keeping with his style.  Poynty follows the rich tradition enjoyed by most of the members of his forum.  They have - to a man -  usurped all rights to comment on over unity - or it's lack.  And they manage this by applying the rather eccentric principles that Poynty outlined in his 16 POYNT PROPOSAL where he attempted to argue against our evidence.  As a study in bad science - it's IMPECCABLE.  And what intrigues me ALWAYS is that they all seriously propose that I am the one who's DELUED - UNTRAINED - KNOW NOT WHEREOF I SPEAK - PROMOTE NON-STANDARD PHYSICS - and on and on.  I think the psychological term is 'projection'.  In any event.  Poynty has never allowed reality, mere facts,  raw data - intrude on his consciousness. 

But perhaps we should indulge him this 'license to confusion'.  Perhaps it's only fair.  After all - when can any of us accuse Poynty of being reasonable, logical, polite, impartial or even professional?  And God forbid that we expect him to limit his argument to conventional knowledge.  His true genius is in that vaunted knowledge which he presents with a certain flourish.  It's as tangled a overcooked spaghetti.  And it's sense just as unpalatable.  He seems to magic a new reality and expect us to swallow it.

In any event.  My quarrel remains.  He has DENIED us our claim for his over unity prize.  I therefore call on him to JUSTIFY this denial.  Else, Poynty Point - you NEED TO PAY UP. 

Rosemary