another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[energy1234hope]

give them heaps rosie all the best with the so called experts. The ones like milehigh who was an expert on everything and was just booted off the iaec forum for his comments that he thinks are right and no one else can be right unless they agree with him.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

give them heaps rosie all the best with the so called experts. The ones like milehigh who was an expert on everything and was just booted off the iaec forum for his comments that he thinks are right and no one else can be right unless they agree with him.

Thanks for this.  MUCH APPRECIATED.  It's lonely on this front.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So.  Ever onwards/...

I agree with you that forums like these can become a 'sesspool' at times, but I also think that there are those who frequent these places (like myself) who are curious about what is going on in the experimentalist/hobbyist/researcher/etc world and are looking around to find others with similar interests.

If your interests do not also include an interest in over unity then I'd suggest that you're at the wrong forum.  If however, they DO include an interest in over unity, then I recommend you do not dismiss evidence of this based on spurious analysis by what appears to be competing interests.

I don't have a Ph.D. or M.A. (apparently you don't either) so how much am I (or you?) likely to be listened to in those 'other' more 'legitimate' types of discussion groups??

There is NOTHING to preclude anyone in the whole wide world from presenting any argument related to science that is based on careful measurement and that has the further merit of supporting the required evidence of a thesis.  This INCLUDES reviewed journals, technical journals AND THESE FORUMS.  There is NO REQUIREMENT ANYWHERE THAT ONE HAS A MASTERS DEGREE OR AN HONOURS DEGREE OR ANY CREDENTIALS AT ALL.  ALL that's required is the CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE ARGUMENT with ADEQUATELY DEFINED TERMS in the description of that argument and UNAMBIGUOUS RESULTS in proof of that argument.  Our field of science is that NOBLE that it knows better than to DEFER to CREDENTIALS.  They are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO SCIENCE.  What credentials show is PROOF of expertise.  Nothing else.

So when you say...

Certainly not as an equal. Since I don't have your expertise in electronics, I wouldn't consider myself your 'equal' so why would you deem listen to me, an uninformed observer in this one? I concede.

then you are WRONG.  Equality has NOTHING to do with CREDENTIALS.  EQUALITY IS ESTABLISHED the minute you are mortal, able to express yourself in a language, and when you have some nominal access to the faculties of logic.  Since all of these TALENTS relate to our BIRTHRIGHT - and since they're shared with billions of us mere mortals on this planet, then INDEED.  We are all WELL ABLE to consider ANYTHING WE WANT up to and including MATTERS RELATED TO SCIENCE.  It is a sad truth that there are those who presume that what they think has no relevance.  Frankly I think we all need to take on the responsibility of exercising our logic.  It is NOT the exclusive property of scientific experts or philosophical experts - for that matter.  It only matters that one ENGAGES.  Else why did God bother to give us our rather SLOWLY EVOLVING brains?  Makes no sense.  Certainly not if we just leave it to others to think for us.  Look at where this has landed us?  For God's sake.  And that because we PRESUMED that our scientists know everything that was left to know about science.  Somehow the 'door was shut' after QED?  I don't think so.
   
Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

From your point of view we're all 'uninformed' when it comes to your circuit and your testing methods and your 'results'. Let's meet your colleagues and see your videos! I'm game. If they 'believe' in your results then they shouldn't have any fear of 'coming out' here... Lame excuse for no other 'collaborators' posting here...

NOW.  LET ME PUT THIS TO BED.  We know your name is Derrick.  I do not know where you live and I do NOT know what your work is - NOTHING.  Nor do I know PoyntyPoint's.  Nor do I know MileHighs, nor Gravock, nor TK, nor exnihloest - and on and on.  There's someone called 'the boss'.  There's another called Mookie.  (Actually I DO know who he is).  And so it goes.  OUR DEDICATED detractors.  They say EXACTLY what they want - oceans of unsubstantiated ALLEGATION - with ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO REFER TO FACT - and this little group have attempted to ASSASSINATE - NOT ONLY the technology - BUT MY GOOD NAME.

Well.  The truth is this.  MY name doesn't really matter.  It doesn't help that they set the stage and teach YOU, for example, how to refer to my work as BS and my thinking as 'TWADDLE'.  Obviously.  But it doesn't impact on my 'livelihood'.  If they were to try and do that with any of our collaborators then there's a real chance that those collaborators would find themselves unemployable.  In the light of this, are you SERIOUSLY proposing that they engage?  When you and I BOTH know what happens to people when the come out in support of a CLAIM?  Just cast your mind back to what happened to Fleischmann and Pons. Those poor men were relegated to ignominy as a result of their efforts.  I WOULD NEVER ask it of them.  That they come and fight this fight on a forum? Which is DOMINATED by anything but science?  Where reputation and opinion matters more than experimental evidence?  And there's NO NEED.  Those rather despicable attempts at cannibalizing on my blasted reputation - would then be more widely spread as they added a few more to that feast.  Bear in mind Derrick, that this is a FIRST.  And it is also for the first time in the history of these forums that ANYONE has challenged Poynty and his 'friends' to support their argument with LOGIC.  The usual diet - stops when they CONCUR that the claimant is a moron.  Easily done.  But as in war.  It is usually better NOT to underestimate the strength of the enemy.  And I suspect that they finally managed to also fondly believe their expressed opinions.  Which is actually quite amusing.

What I've hoped to do - for once and for all - is to show proof that ACTUALLY - we claimants are NOT deluded, NOT inarticulate and NOT illogical.  And, more to the point, our claims are scientifically VALID.

Which I think covers your entire post.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
   
Added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And MileHigh - this is all that I have to say about your latest objections.  My knowledge of electronics is abysmal.  My knowledge of conceptual physics is more than adequate.  You have all ASSUMED that because I am not au fait with electronics - then I know NOTHING.  That, like so many other bigoted assumptions that you all indulge - is what it is. PURE ASSUMPTION.  I have a video'd example of a HIGHLY QUALIFIED NUCLEAR PHYSICIST who was ENTIRELY unable to distinguish between a circuit that included a 555 switching schematic - and one that did not. That does not make him stupid or less of an expert - BUT IN HIS OWN FIELD.

And may I add - that any advance of 'field physics' will rely ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on 'concept'.  It's an art in the making.  It is most certainly NOT an established branch of physics.  And, thankfully, it has not, thereby, been corrupted by ASSUMPTIONS that DOG both QED and Relativity.  And it is PERFECTLY developed by our string theorists.  But they're ALSO LOOKING for that particle.

So.  Do NOT try and patronise me.  And kindly refrain from advising the entire world that current can come from the battery and somehow flow through the circuitry of a function generator.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  I am awaiting a detailed account of WHY this is impossible from a TECHNICAL EXPERT.  With his permission I will then post that explanation here.  The ONLY thing that may POSSIBLY be managed is that current will flow between the signal terminal and its ground.  And that CANNOT happen if the applied signal does not correspond with the applied current from the supply - WHATEVER IT IS.

Regards,
Rosemary