another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Guys,

This may be a bit precipitous.  But I'm almost inclined to think that ALL Poynty's, and indeed MileHigh's objections have now been addressed.  What we're now left with is our initial claim where we're seeing a continual current flow in an oscillation that is most certainly NOT coming from the battery supply.  What is exceptional about this is - not that it's robust, which it is, not that it's exploitable, which it is - but that it's there at all.  Because, in terms of our standard model, the assumption is made that the battery supplies energy to the circuit.  And right here the evidence is that the battery is NOT supplying energy to the circuit. 

Be that as it may.  The fact is that on all our measurements - and we ONLY apply standard measurement protocols - there is the measured evidence of more energy being, dare I say it 'generated' on the circuit - than was supplied by the supply source.  To date, we have relied on the concept of a battery 'supplying' the juice - so to speak.  So.  What gives?  Our own proposal is that what we're accessing is the energy that holds atoms into coalesced matter.  You are all familiar with Einstein's E=Mc^2.  All that means is that there is energy in matter.  And the more matter, and the heavier and more complex the atoms - then the more energy.  But. Until our Dark Energy enthusiasts came along - there was no NEED to assume that that energy was in anything other than in the particles that formed those atoms that formed that coalesced material.  Now.  If one proposes, as we do, that the 'binding' of those fields - is achieved by magnetic strings - arranged along Faraday's Line's of Force, and that these fields distribute matter and in so doing - liberate exploitable energy - then we're still talking about the same thing.  Because the number of binding fields would relate precisely to the number of atoms bound.  The difference is this.  When that energy is 'released' in the form of work - then it would be released in 'discrete' parcels or packages.  And that, in turn, would comply with Planck's constant - h.  Then being essentially small magnets, each field would be able to reach through space and bind with proximate fields in proximate coalesced matter.  Which would resolve the Casimir effect.  And so the correspondences seem to correlate more and more to what is already known in the standard model.  Therefore, we do NOT, at any stage, either propose something that conflicts with what is observed - or conflicts with what has been deduced, thus far. 

However, when it comes to the actual measure of the amount of energy that seems to be available in conductive and inductive circuit material - then we're onto a new footing.  Because this has never been proposed - then it needs mathematical constructs.  And that is not within the capabilities of any of us collaborators.  But it would be a good thing to progress this.  Because, unarguably, there appears to be a valuable source of energy here that has been somewhat overlooked these past centuries or so.

But that was not the intention of reworking this thread.  What WAS intended was to show you that this protest that dogs my heels - in my efforts to make this knowledge Open Source, is founded on rather thin scientific justification.  And rather than debate anything at all - some rather heavy handed protesters presume to DECLARE that we have NOTHING and that this is all a waste of time.  It may well turn out to be so.  But that should not prevent our investigating it.  And I am NOT here talking about our own technology.  I'm talking about everyone on any of these forums who ALL work dilligently, and, in my case, somewhat obsessively, to explore new evidence - new lines of thought .  Only to find that our most earnest attempts seem to warrant a kind of abuse that would not even be appropriate if it would applied to known criminals, fraudsters and con artists.  What gives?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Which brings me back to my point.  Dear Poynty and Dear Professor Steven E Jones,

Kindly be advised that we have now circulated our papers to you both.  We have explained our applied protocols.  And we have shown evidence that we exceed unity.  You have not been able to provide us with cogent arguments against our methods of analysis.  We therefore conclude that you have none.  We would be very happy to give you a full demonstration of this - at a venue for you both to determine - and - provided that our measurements comply to those claimed in our paper - then we would be glad if you would kindly cough up.  I'm not sure of the value of that prize.  But it would be invaluable to just get you both to acknowledge over unity.  Because that way we could all move on,  somewhat more constructively - I might add, in these our endeavors.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear MileHigh,

>>Firstly, no electronics designer in their right mind would ever design a circuit that has the output from a MOSFET, the source pin, connected to the signal terminal of a function generator.  It makes no sense at all, it means you are trying to put current through the function generator.   The signal terminal of a function generator is supposed to connect to the gate input of a MOSFET.
AGREED

>>So lo and behold that's what your circuit does, it has current flowing through the function generator itself, which is totally bizarre and makes no sense.
IMPOSSIBLE FOR CURRENT TO FLOW THROUGH THE SIGNAL GENERATOR.  I've explained this. 

>>Notwithstanding what you did, let's say the signal generator swings between 0 volts and -5 volts.   That's of course because you add the negative offset to the signal generator output.
CORRECT

>>When the signal generator outputs 0 volts, Q1 is off and Q2 is off - no oscillation.
INDEED.  But when the signal is PERMANENTLY APPLIED - negative to Q1's Gate and positive to Q2's Gate - then the SIGNAL IS NOT OSCILLATING ANYWHERE AT ALL.

>>When the signal generator outputs -5 volts then Q1 is still off and Q2 switches on - the circuit oscillates
INDEED.  But then the current would need to move through the function generator's wires and come out at the mouth of the signal's terminal and OVERRIDE the negative applied signal at that point.  And because it can now IGNORE that negative signal at that terminal - then the batteries  would be able to discharge current from the battery without interruption and without obstruction.  And then there would be evidence of a current discharge greater than zero - CONTINUOUSLY.  No oscillation AT ALL.

>>The reason Q2 switches on is that the Q2 gate voltage is at 0 volts and the Q2 source pin is at - 5 volts.   Therefore the gate pin is at a higher potential than the source pin and the MOSFET switches on.   In other words, the gate pin is at +5 volts relative to the source pin and that makes the MOSFET switch on.
Again.  I AGREE.  This is standard.  But don't now try and argue that the current that is - in any event prevented from flowing from the battery - now comes out and starts flowing 'freely' notwithstanding the offset switch.  And not only that but it comes out in full force and overrides the applied signal from the signal terminal onto Q1's gate.  That's absurd. 

>>In reality, the MOSFET switches on for just a fraction of a second and then it switches off because the circuit conditions are such that it goes into spontaneous oscillation.
Very likely.  But that does not explain the source of the oscillation if that energy is NOT coming from the battery.

>>So, when the output of the signal generator goes low, the circuit oscillates, and current flows through the signal generator itself to complete the circuit.  It's a totally bizarre nonsensical design.  Nobody would ever design a circuit where current flows through the signal generator itself like your circuit does.  Your circuit is just an accidental miswiring of a MOSFET that results in oscillation.  The fact that it oscillates is not surprising at all.
I can't comment.  I only know that the oscillation is showing us a supply of energy that cannot possibly be coming from the battery.  Why are you so anxious to close this discussion with this your 'opinion'?  The more so as its based on improbable assumptions?  Do you feel that your knowledge is greater than that of our academics and therefore this does not need to be put to the academic forum?  Is that your concern?  Or are you anxious to assure us all that you've now dealt with these questions?  Because you haven't.  You really, really haven't.  You've barely touched the surface.  

>>And then you arrive at the "garbage-in garbage-out" part of the story.  The circuit is bizarre but still operates like any conventional circuit with respect to the energy dynamics.  You make "garbage in"  measurements and are fooled by what you see, and thus you arrive at a "garbage out" conclusion.
We make absolutely no measurements.  Some rather zut instruments do that for us.  If you're proposing that those measurements are garbage - then I'm afraid there is much in those specifications that prove you VERY WRONG INDEED.

Regards, as ever,
Rosemary

And MileHigh.  What do you then make of an oscillation that is enabled with the use of ONLY 1 MOSFET applied to a circuit with ONLY a negative signal applied to it's GATE.  That also induces PRECISELY the same oscillation.  That rules out every objection you've posed here.  Because that applied signal is NOT coming from a function generator.  And I've REPEATEDLY referred to this test and that evidence.  For some reason you and Poynty seem to need to IGNORE IT.

>>MILEHIGH
ME

[poynt99]

What do you then make of an oscillation that is enabled with the use of ONLY 1 MOSFET applied to a circuit with ONLY a negative signal applied to it's GATE.  That also induces PRECISELY the same oscillation.

I greatly expect this is another example of a misunderstanding of how the circuit is put together and how it is operating. I assure you, an N-channel MOSFET will not do anything (not even oscillate) with an applied negative V_GS voltage.

Post the exact circuit diagram of this test and we'll be able to home in on your error. But most likely you won't, that's a predictable pattern you always seem to follow.

That rules out every objection you've posed here.  Because that applied signal is NOT coming from a function generator.  And I've REPEATEDLY referred to this test and that evidence.  For some reason you and Poynty seem to need to IGNORE IT.

That rules out nothing of the sort. You made no cogent argument at all, you've only put forth an opinion. If you have the gumption to post a diagram of the single MOSFET oscillator, then you have a starting point to prove the claim of that test is valid, otherwise it's only hearsay at this juncture.

Oh, and if you DO find the gumption to post that diagram, be sure to include exact settings of the FG as well.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

I am under NO obligation to provide anything to either of you short of what has already been provided.  What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.  In which case we qualify for your prize.  What we can CERTAINLY include in that demonstration - is the use of just one MOSFET without the application of a Function generator which we will demonstrate to produce that oscillation for the DURATION that a negative signal is applied to the gate of that transistor.

I think that I and your public would expect better courtesy from you both - Poynty for the RUDENESS of your address - and Professor for simply ignoring this claim of ours in its entirety.  It is an unfortunate approach in the light of my allegations that there are MOTIVES in denying our claim that have nothing to do with science.  We are happy to include that added experiment in our demonstration.

Regards
Rosemary

I greatly expect this is another example of a misunderstanding of how the circuit is put together and how it is operating. I assure you, an N-channel MOSFET will not do anything (not even oscillate) with an applied negative V_GS voltage.

Post the exact circuit diagram of this test and we'll be able to home in on your error. But most likely you won't, that's a predictable pattern you always seem to follow.
That rules out nothing of the sort. You made no cogent argument at all, you've only put forth an opinion. If you have the gumption to post a diagram of the single MOSFET oscillator, then you have a starting point to prove the claim of that test is valid, otherwise it's only hearsay at this juncture.

Oh, and if you DO find the gumption to post that diagram, be sure to include exact settings of the FG as well.