another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Bubba1]

...The interaction of one valence electron with another valence electron - as the transfer of energy - through copper wire - is a velocity that is KNOWN.  And that would take considerably more time than instantaneous - which is what we see when we flick a light switch... 

Rosemary:  again, where are you getting this information that I would like to read for myself?

Bubba

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:  again, where are you getting this information that I would like to read for myself?

Bubba

What information do you want to read for yourself Bubba?  Read anything and everything related to physics written for the layman, in some cases even written by our acknowledged leaders in science including Murray Gell-Mann and Hawking.  There is a wealth of informative literature where science is explained 'conceptually' - including Dyson and my particular favourite - Zukov.  But there are MANY such.  The difference between this and technical literature is only that they use simple language as opposed to mathematics - to EXPLAIN - the foundational concepts.  Which, I might add, is apparently and sorely lacking in the standard teaching curriculum of electrical engineers. 

But may I add.  I have NEVER read the proposal that a magnetic field may comprise particles.  So if that's what you're hoping to find - then you'll be disappointed.  I have proposed this - without any authority as there are absolutely no citations.

But if you want to 'skip' all that reading - just ask any theoretical physicist.  One out of every 10 will assure you that current flow is the flow of CHARGE.  Which it is.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary.
And thank you for alerting me to my spelling error.  But I'll pass on re-editing the edit.

Added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Derrick,

I agree, I am NOT qualified to argue how your circuit works (or why it works a certain way or why you have your 'oscillation').
There are others here who ARE qualified to do so.

If there are such, here on our forums - THEN WHERE ARE THEY?    Poynty is trying to argue this without any reference to standard measurement protocols.  I still can't decide if this is deliberate.  MileHigh is in the dizzy distance - trying to find some kind of inspiration from the upper reaches of outer space.  TK occasionally comes to the party advertising his youtube nonsense.  And in the background lurks our Professor Steven E Jones who now, rather confusingly, uses the pseudonym Poynt.99     Gravock also appears every now and then to offer some lonely  'applause' to Poynty's contribution.  They all advise me that my ignorance is abysmal based on an entire want of intellect and reason. And while all and sundry are advising all and sundry that I don't understand basic electrical engineering -  the only thing that rings out loud and clear is that - not only DO I understand it - but that I understand it rather better than themselves.

And then - to cap their argument - which is based not on logic, not on the standard model - not even on standard measurement protocols - but based on CONSENSUS - they seriously propose that I cease and desist.  It now seems that their authority comes in the guise of 'majority vote'.  And that enfranchisement needs nothing more than forum membership.  But that forum membership comprises, for the most part - a whole lot of anonymous people who avoid all accountability by NEVER disclosing their identities.  Which means that they are entirely unaccountable for the gross extent of traducements that they liberally, and somewhat incautiously, APPLY.  And for the first time in the history of science - it is earnestly suggested that we determine our paradigms on democratic rather than scientific principles.  Which would be wonderful.  And since I'm then widely advertised as a kook and a half wit - then they/you/all of them - ASSUME the further right to insult me and trash our technology - to their heart's content while they 'vote' no.

I wish I could find it in me to endorse any part of this.  I am left with the options of ignoring it or confronting it.  I've tried ignoring it.  But it seems that WHEN I do they then use those same tactics - that I am now intimately familiar with - on other poor and unsuspecting claimants.  Never will simple evidence 'cut it'.  All must be prejudged and DISMISSED.  Not only that but even when I'm 'not around' I get trashed on a purely personal level by these same talking heads - who offer a quality of abuse that - under normal conditions - would be actionable.  But they're NOT accountable.  They DO NOT POST UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES.  That way - they can say what they like.  And they can indulge this disgusting romp into hate speech - to their heart's content.  I've actually had enough.  I intend seeing this through to its conclusion.  I've had a belly full Derrick.  This has all be excessively abusive.  If I felt there was no merit in this technology I"d have folded - long back.  But I'm in the unhappy position of knowing the harm that they do - the utterly unsubstantiated bases of their arguments - and, very likely - the agenda that motivates it.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It is NOT impossible. It DEPENDS on the mode of operation. I alluded to the fact that the circuit can be operated in two slightly different modes; mode1 where Q2 is active, and Q1 not, and mode2 where Q1 is active and Q2 not. Mode1 is achieved by using a -5V to 0V pulse train on the FG, and mode2 by using a 0V to +5V pulse train on the FG.

IF the device is operated in mode2, (0V to +5V pulse, Q1 is active) then in fact the established current path is through the Q1 Source, and NOT the FG. The oscillation occurs when the FG is HI, or at +5V.

Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper. It's clearly stated that a NEGATIVE offset is used in the FG (mode1), but when FIG.'s 3 and 5 are examined, it is clear that about +8V is measured on the Q1 Gate in both, which means mode2 was actually used for the test.

In this case, the FG would not be providing that path, the path is through the Q1 Source when it is ON. BUT THERE IS A PATH ROSEMARY! It's through the Q1-S. 

Now - with respect to this post of Poynt's. I posted my argument against - yesterday afternoon.  Immediately thereafter Harti's system when into loop mode - and again, I was not able to complete my reply.

Since it's now the focus of my topic - I've taken the trouble to highlight Poynty's post.  Here's what I refer to...'Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper.' 

Poynty Point.  You state this as a FACT.  Anyone reading here will ASSUME that you know what you're talking about.  Therefore the ASSUMPTION will be made that there ARE indeed CONFUSIONS and ERRORS with that paper.  When in truth - the CONFUSIONS and ERRORS are your own making.  I do not know if this is deliberate.  I only know that what you have just stated is both DAMAGING AND WRONG and it is applied to the hard work of skilled engineers - myself excepted.  I would recommend that you learn a modicum of discretion PoyntyPoint.  Or we'll all start thinking that you're trying to spread the general impression - YET AGAIN - that the Paper ERRS or, alternatively that  the data referenced ERRS  - when, in fact, it's your presentation and interpretation of that data that not only ERRS but is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now - back to PhiChaser's post and to continue/...

I see a stubborn person who refuses to accept (from any direction) that she just might be wrong.

As it relates to the 'thesis' I freely confess that I may be wrong.  As it relates to the experimental evidence - the question as to my being 'right' or 'wrong' does not come into the equation.  We have experimental proof, clear evidence, supported by close analysis, from more than 500 data dumps - that WE EXCEED UNITY.  The proof is in the continual measure of more energy computed to have been returned and dissipated over a circuit than was EVER DELIVERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  No-one can idly CLAIM that we've 'made a measurement's error'.  IMPOSSIBLE.  Our measuring equipment is top of the range. Our protocols are MORE THAN ADEQUATE.  And the level of energy being measured is NOT MARGINAL.  No ambivalence.  No ambiguities.  It is simply NOT that small that it could be debated in any context at all.

What you're actually 'buying into' is the ASSUMPTION that we've made an error in our analysis.  Certainly.  IF we were applying those absurd proposals of PoyntyPoint - that we compute the negative voltage measured across the inductive components of the circuit (including the element resistor) while the battery is in the process of discharging a current flow through a closed circuit - THEN YOU WOULD BE RIGHT.  Alternatively, if you are proposing that anything up to and including the flow of 5 amps of current from the battery supply can breach more than of 1000K's of resistance in the signal generator to present itself at the signal terminal and then ALSO - simply IGNORE the applied negative signal at that terminal - AGAIN.  YOU'D BE RIGHT.  Alternatively, if you proposed that my eyesight is that poor that I'm 'misreading' the results - and that our LeCroy scope shots are sharing my MYOPIA - AGAIN.  YOU'D BE RIGHT. 

HOWEVER.  Those arguments - are ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS - AND ERRONEOUS.  They have considerably less to do with science than than they have with 'agendas'.  I do NOT know what that agenda is.  But back to my point.  IF it appears that I am STUBBORN when I insist that the results need to be properly CONSIDERED - then I have the full weight of the entire field of science - behind me.  Because those measurements FLY IN THE FACE of what SCIENCE TEACHES US.  If you prefer it that I simply 'fold' and 'go away' which is clearly the preferred option here - then I would need to do this DESPITE the CRYING NEED for some critical evaluation OF THOSE RESULTS.  So.  Forgive what you seem to consider is my 'stubborn' nature.  I am simply trying to progress some rather controversial evidence.

Regards,
Rosemary