another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Guys, I think that really what's called for is some synopsis of those arguments that Poynty Point relies on to DISMISS our claim for his over unity prize. 

He states that the battery discharges a negative current flow.  This is wrong.
He states that the circuit is permanently closed.  This is wrong
He states that power is conserved.  I don't even know what he means.
He states that a current flow from a battery can bypass it's own source leg.  This is alarming.
He states that there is no significance to that self-sustained oscillation.  This is also alarming.
He argues nothing and states everything.  And all his statements are variously fallacious, misleading, intentionally obtuse and irrelevant
Especially as it relates to his opinion about me in any personal context at all.

I get the distinct impression that he doesn't like me.  But that's neither here nor there.  His prize was not offered on the condition of first 'liking' someone.

He then requires it as a condition of demonstration that he applies his rather corrupted measurement protocols - (that inverted probe number) so that he can then skew the results and deny us our claim and thereby deny us our rights to his prize.

He is patently unable to adjudicate any results based on an impartial assessment of the evidence using standard accepted methods of analysis.  Therefore he should, by rights, withdraw his prize - or, alternatively, move heaven and earth to confirm our claim.  Else he is CLEARLY not promoting evidence of over unity - but rather - he is deliberately FRUSTRATING IT.

And if this hard work of mine that has now spanned a full month - brings nothing else to fruition - I trust it will alert those many readers here to that 'agenda' that I allude to repeatedly.  There are those forum owners whose sole intention it is to DIMINISH any evidence of over unity - using whatever methods they can manage.

And just as a small reminder of SOME of the extent of our claim.  We are able to dissipate energy at a workstation of a circuit without any discharge of any energy at all from a battery supply source.  The level of energy dissipated can be enough to bring water to boil.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Gravock, regarding this post of yours as it relates to a discussion of the electron.

An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves.  We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form.  Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiraling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.

The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.

I can't comment.  Our own contention is that current flow has little - if anything - to do with the flow of electrons.  Rather what we know of as the flow of current is here proposed to be the flow of 'raw' charge.  And that charge is proposed to comprise magnetic particles being transferred as a field through the circuit.  This is not strictly in terms of conventional concepts - but this model has the real merit of defining the magnetic field - in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force.  In line with this and in line with conventional concepts - we assume that radio signals and light - rely exclusively on photons - that irradiate outwards from a source.  Which means that there would be no interference.  But I am not sure that photons are able to generate a field, any more than an electron can generate, propagate, or move as a 'field'.  Nor, indeed, can any of our known stable particles.  And it is the 'field' described by Faraday's Lines of Force - that is best answered by arguing that it may comprise this dipolar tachyon.

Regarding this quote of yours which I'm simply copying over here.

Using the right hand and pointing the thumb in the direction of the moving positive charge or positive current and the fingers in the direction of the magnetic field the resulting force on the charge points outwards from the palm. The force on a negatively charged particle is in the opposite direction. If both the speed and the charge are reversed then the direction of the force remains the same. For that reason a magnetic field measurement (by itself) cannot distinguish whether there is a positive charge moving to the right or a negative charge moving to the left. (Both of these cases produce the same current.) On the other hand, a magnetic field combined with an electric field can distinguish between these, such as the Hall effect.

Until this distinction is made, then I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.
Below is a quote I made earlier in this thread.  This issue must be settled before we know how to correctly measure the device, IMO.

Again.  I don't think any of us can argue the positive and negative current flows in terms of this convention.  But when you claim that the  'direction of the force remains the same' then I'm not sure that this is correct.  We know that we can run a current through a circuit with polarised LED's that only light when the current flow is negative or positive.  Which speaks to a varying 'direction of force'.  Unless, obviously, I've misunderstood you.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The only point still outstanding in this thread - is some kind of answer from Professor Steven E Jones.  I'm posting over my offer to him to do this demonstration in a context where the results will be unequivocal.  If I don't hear from him it's because he's in bed with Poynty Point and I doubt that he'll care to 'rock that boat' or 'upset that applecart' as clearly there is some kind of advantage.  Some kind of 'quid pro quo'.  Clearly Professor it not prepared to simply apply standard measurements and nor is he, apparently, in a position to evaluate our own applied measurement protocols as explained in that paper.  This is possibly because his expertise is in chemistry.

Here's that proposed test which would, indeed be conclusive.

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

As detailed I'm happy to do this test with sundry caveats that I'll reference hereafter.
Regards again,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

What's really called for here guys, is for Rosemary to get off her butt, stop making excuses, and either make the proper measurements as she's been advised to several times, or use another method, also as advised.

Mags' suggestion to compare two sets of batteries and loads is fine, but it requires a lot of work and time in terms of setting everything up and acquiring more batteries etc. And moreover, she is refusing to perform this test UNLESS her caveats are satisfied. How droll.

A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof. Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.

If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".

If neither bulb illuminates and the circuit is running and heating the element, then once again it would be overunity. (However, if neither bulb illuminates, it would first be prudent to try several lower wattage bulbs before jumping to this conclusion).

If both bulbs illuminate, then it would have to be determined which is dissipating the most power, especially if it is not obvious by their relative intensities.

.99

[gyulasun]

...
Unlike you I'm NOT an expert.  But it occurs to me that AbbaRue's conclusions are 'on the money'.  The fact is that those oscillations should persist IF one transposes  'P Channel MOSFET's appropriately on that circuit.  In which event the DRAIN would indeed be used instead of the source.  And I'm ENTIRELY satisfied that IF we we replaced our own with the P Channel type then we would, MOST CERTAINLY manage the same oscillations for the same extended durations.
... 

Dear Rosemary,
I understand that you welcome any positive comments (or seemingly favorable comments) from your final goal  points of view  and basically I do agree with AbbaRue’s approach to take the trouble of actually building  your shown circuit.  And now I have come and objected his three  observations…  Sorry for this, I am not against him,  I am not against you,  I simply felt oblidged to shed some scientific light onto his three observations. 
Unfortunately,  I have to make a notice for you (referring to your above text) that in case you would use P channel  MOSFETs in that circuit, the circuit's basic topology like connecting a gate to a drain would not be needed to change.  Changing  an N channel FET to a P channel  one it is either  the supply voltage polarity you need to change or you can use mirror image of the circuit and original supply polarity remains the same.  See what I mean in the Berkeley link AbbaRue kindly showed, http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/142/pdf/lect23.pdf  in Page 12, on the left hand side the P channel, on the right hand side the N channel version is shown.      Also, see Page 17 on its left hand side:  the circuit shows a fully P channel MOSFET oscillator,  the cross connection is nowhere shown changing, gates go to the drains in cases of both the N and the P channel devices.           AND on the right hand side of Page 17 there is shown a mixture of P channel cross connection (upper part of the schematic) and an N channel cross connection (lower part).

Now the next notice of mine for you (which might be the last one on this topic) addresses what you wrote I quote:  "You are here describing our standard 'runaway' parasitic oscillation.  This is most certainly the result of paralleled transistors."                           

No, I did not mean ’standard runaway parasitic oscillation’…   This is like I say apple and you say another fruit but not apple, sorry.  I clearly described what I meant in the text from which you quoted: what may happen when a 200V maximum drain-source voltage rated MOSFET receives higher than 200V between its drain-source electrode.  In your circuit you use IRFPG50 types which have 1000V max drain-source voltage ratings and you have never showed any oscillatains that have approached 1000V or even say 500V, hence we cannot talk about the situation I was describing with the 200V MOSFET type. 

Regards,
Gyula