another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Magluvin]

Cmon. I figured someone would say"hey Mags, the gen was set at 20v, not 10v, get your facts straight!" by now. 

YEAH, dats right dere mugsy. Ya gots 20v bein loaded downs tru da tree volts battary.

Now. From that video, can we absolutely 100% say that the circuit operating in the vid, does not maybe also have hidden wires, configuring it in a way to give a desired show, to the 3 people reading this thread?

The blatant changes using the transformer to represent the inductor in Roses circuit, and installing the leds across it, not inline, as in Roses circuit shown on the paper in the vid, Thats a big, in your face difference.

Why did you choose to do it that way TK?
Why did you clearly present the schmatic and then literally show something different, and find your case conclusive to you views? 
How long were you thinking that nobody would see what was happening here?

There are a lot of people that watch your stuff.   

Mags

[poynt99]

Poynty - I'll try and get back here later tonight.  I'm bushed.  I'll explain the problem.  But I've actually already tried to point it out.  Just read back on that oscillation and how it effects a dual rail of diodes.  Did you even read it?  Anyway.  I am so tired I can hardly type.  I'll try and get back here later.

Regards,
R

Yes, I've read it Rosemary, but I can't say I fully understand the implications, as you've not gone into sufficient detail to get that.

Also, do you consider it a valid test? If not, why did you perform it?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty Point,

Here's your proposed test

The method I propose is the dual light bulb idea I described some time back. Two power diodes and two 60W or 100W light bulbs are placed in series with the positive lead from the batteries. I would suggest as a prerequisite, you confirm first that with these diodes and bulbs installed, the apparatus still exhibits the same or similar infinite COP measurement you are seeing now. I would strongly suggest too that the two light bulbs be fully covered with a cardboard box for this prerequisite test.

Once you have confirmed that your measurement is still COP infinity, then the clearly labeled bulbs can be revealed and it should be immediately evident which direction the greatest current is passing, i.e. either from the battery (underunity), or to the battery (COP infinity).

What are your thoughts?

Now when you first posted that circuit I answered that we'd already tested it.  I told you the results which I subsequently repeated here.

NO Poynty.  Where's all that intellect I've accused you of?  We have two rails of LED's.  The one takes current from the battery supply.  The other takes current from CEMF.  TWO OPTIONAL PATHS.  Now.  We've got an oscillation.  Voltage moves equally - above and below zero.  Therefore, correspondingly, the current flows above and below zero in each oscillation.  Therefore - one would expect the current to move through either one or other of those rails - depending on that polarity.  NOW.  NOTA BENE.  There is NO CORRUPTION OF THAT OSCILLATING WAVEFORM - ON EITHER SIDE OF THOSE LED's.  YET.  Only ONE RAIL STAYS LIT.  And the other doesn't even turn on.  Not EXACTLY what our standard model would predict.  I would have thought?
Rosie Pose

IF you understood this post WHY then are you now proposing to design any kind of definitive test around this circuit of yours?  Either you're ignoring this post.  Or you haven't understood the implications of this post. Or you're pretending not to understand them.  Because I find it extraordinary that you'd nominate to use PRECISELY this ANOMALY - to DISPROVE our claim.  What you're IMPLYING is that IF the one rail stays lit then the energy is from the battery supply.  And what I'm telling you is that IF this is coming from the battery supply then the battery is delivering an alternating current flow.  Which is unlikely.

Regards,
Rosemary

added
I still haven't made this clear enough - possibly?  The voltage across the shunt shows that current is flowing clockwise and anticlockwise through the circuit.  Therefore one would expect the LED's in our tests - to alternate - first the one rail - then the other - depending on the current polarity.  But what actually happens is that ONLY the one rail stays lit.  Is that clearer?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes, I've read it Rosemary, but I can't say I fully understand the implications, as you've not gone into sufficient detail to get that.

Also, do you consider it a valid test? If not, why did you perform it?

And Poynty,

Let me explain why we performed this test.  We have a thesis that suggests that current flow does not comprise the flow of electrons.  Our proposal is that it may, in fact be the material of magnetic dipoles that assemble as a field condition in 'strings'.  These fields are essentially structured from magnetic dipoles.  They have both a north and south pole - like a little magnet.

So here's what a broken string looks like.                             -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+
Then.  If the applied voltage is positive it moves clockwise     -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
And if the applied voltage is negative it moves anticlockwise  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this <<<<<  LESS THAN ZERO   

Which would explain how the oscillating waveform can move through a single rail of LED's by presenting alternate charges depending on the applied voltage. And this, indeed - is what seems to be happening. 

Which also means that IF we simply used your proposed circuit and IF then the one light stayed permanently lit - then we'd be proving our thesis. But STRANGELY you're also then proposing that it would disprove our Infinite COP claim. 

Is that any clearer?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
       
added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The blatant changes using the transformer to represent the inductor in Roses circuit, and installing the leds across it, not inline, as in Roses circuit shown on the paper in the vid, Thats a big, in your face difference.

Why did you choose to do it that way TK?
Why did you clearly present the schematic and then literally show something different, and find your case conclusive to you views? 
How long were you thinking that nobody would see what was happening here?

There are a lot of people that watch your stuff.   

Mags

Magsy - I'm inclined to agree with you.  There was an evident need to PROVE that the energy powering our circuit is exclusively from the function generator.  Since we dissipate wattage in excess of 100 watts - then this claim is patently absurd.  But one must hand it to him.  He gave it his best shot. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie