another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I need to wrap this up.

So.  Again.  Back to the theme of this thread.  All we've tried to do is to alert you all - through careful argument - of the utterly spurious bases of rejection that Poynty et al attempt.  His objections thus far have been absurdly wanting in scientific justification.  And his dismissal of our claim has been presented with such a dire want of good manners and sincere interest that it self-evidently is designed to REJECT or SUPPRESS everything or anything at all.  I can't argue for the others.  I am not familiar with their tests nor their claims.  But I do know my own.  And the ONLY justification for engaging Poynty et al - in this debacle - is that he has offered a PRIZE for finding over unity.  Therefore he is contractually bound to argue our claim. And thus far he has presented absolutely NO argument to refute it.  Not only that but he's attitude has been one of such appalling rudeness that - at it's least - one must assume that he's somewhat 'combative'. 

If there were any sincere attempt at finding proof of over unity - then my schooling or lack thereof would not be considered.  My age, my intellect, my dress sense, NOTHING would matter - more than a sincere and willing evaluation of the tests presented.  Else we can SAFELY conclude - that there is a motive in DISMISSAL - that is in line with a hidden agenda.  And I only KNEW that should I present that challenge that he, and his 'friends' would need to resort to that rather inappropriate attack.  I relied on it.  I needed that evidence to prove my point.

Regards,
Rosemary

[hartiberlin]

Hi Rosemary and all,
I am now closing this thread as it does not make sense to discuss a circuit,
where there are known measurement problems and the function generator and
ground problems are still there.

So please Rosemary, if you want to go further with your circuit,
and really convince the Pros
please do some more experiments WITHOUT the function and just use your 555 timer you already have
and use some parallel and serial connected SMD  resistors as
your shunt and also use a battery capacitance meter
as shown here in this new Bedini movie at around 34:20 minute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1G15sEW3NQ
so you can tell us the battery capacitance before and after the tests.


Otherwise it makes no sense to discuss your old circuit cause it is based
on too many measurement problems.

Regards, Stefan.

[hartiberlin]

This was my Reply to Rosemary about her last private email to me.
I am unlocking now this thread again.

====================================


Hi Rosemary,
sorry, I was busy with other things...

So can´t you just make new tests which I proposed ?

Why is it so hard for you to use a capacitor in parallel with the batteries,
so you have a stable Battery voltage
which would be much better for measurement of the input power

and use these total maybe 3 US$ SMD shunts
to have noninductive shunts and use a battery capacitance meter
to show the charge level of the batteries before and after the tests ?

If you can do these tests and document it in a new video your trust level would rise
much more from all readers of the forum...

ALso finally get rid of the function generator and use a 9 Volts battery to apply
the negative threshold voltage level for the oscillation to occur.

Until then I will consider your device a measurement error as I and others have shown you
many times..

I will post this onto the forum also.

I will also unlock your thread again and you can post again, but probably notbody will further listen,
until you will do these measurement improvements to nail down the effects...

You said yourself 3 or 4 Weeks ago, I should lock the thread after you had posted the 2 PDF files.
I thought you already DID POST these files....


Regards, Stefan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well.  Who would have thought?  It seems that I have my own thread back.  If I didn't know better I'd conclude that Harti became increasingly aware of a certain injustice in locking my thread in the first instance. 

Now.  Harti.  Lest we EVER again move away from the 'same page' so to speak - let me make this clear.  My continuing to post on your forum is done on the UNDERSTANDING that you will NOT AGAIN lock my thread without my EXPRESS REQUEST to do so.  Unless obviously, that is, that I actually EVER breach forum guidelines by the gratuitous and inappropriate criticisms of your members.  Otherwise, presumably, I am entitled to a certain 'freedom' of expression that is enjoyed by the MEN on your forum.  One hopes, in these enlightened times, that your resistance to my own license to 'speak my mind' is not based on a general 'dislike' of a mere 'female' attempting to engage in 'matters scientific'?  If not for this - then I'm flummoxed.  Because the only other explanation is that you DISLIKE our technology.  And that is hardly an impartial attitude - which is what we all rely on when we engage here.

In any event.  I am that grateful for this extraordinary concession - that I'll withhold a detailed analysis of your motives.  And press on.  Notwithstanding your assurance that there is absolutely NO INTEREST in this thread or even in our claim.  I'll just 'rabbit on' on my own if there's a want of members who wish to engage.  I'm well used to my 'monologues'.  As - it seems - are your readers.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Harti,

Since you've made this email public - then let me answer it publicly.

So can´t you just make new tests which I proposed ?

Which new tests?  If you're referring to the use of a 555 switch in place of the function generator - then we've done that test.  If you're referring to the use of a single MOSFET with the continual application of a negative signal - then we've done that test.  Both show a continual oscillation.  And both show an evident infinite co-efficient of performance.  I've mentioned this REPEATEDLY.  Is there something that I'm writing that you can't understand?  If so - then let me know.  God knows how, but I'll then see if I can make this clearer.  Failing which, may I impose on you to stop asking me this?   

Why is it so hard for you to use a capacitor in parallel with the batteries, so you have a stable Battery voltage which would be much better for measurement of the input power

This question is answered in our paper - and at length.  The short answer is because it kills the oscillation.  And the long answer is why it kills it.   I'll look for that extract when I've finished here and just edit it in. Here's that extract.

Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity.
            A capacitor has no retained potential difference after a discharge of its energy. Therefore, to test whether this retained potential difference is a required condition to enable the oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during operation when the oscillation was fully established. The batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that the retained potential difference at the primary supply source is required, if not entirely responsible, for driving this oscillation. Which, in turn, points to the need for any applications of this technology that are either restricted to battery supply sources or, if a grid supply is used, that the circuit is applied directly in series with that supply source thereby being able to access the potential difference at that supply.