another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Flux It]

Hello Schubert,

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I have no idea how one does these simulations.  But I'm delighted that you're exploring this.  Can we at least see a picture of your waveforms?  I know that this waveform has been simulated by a number of people - including Poynty Point.  I get it that you don't get any oscillation at all? Or is it that you get something that's always greater than zero?

Either way - it would be nice to see what you do get.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Heres a link to the circuit-

circuit sim


Its a simple drag and drop tool, and very basic but you can also use it to create schematics of a working circuit with a 555 and all the correct values. The sim itself may not show your effect but its a great way to experiment without letting the smoke out of components 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Heres a link to the circuit-

circuit sim


Its a simple drag and drop tool, and very basic but you can also use it to create schematics of a working circuit with a 555 and all the correct values. The sim itself may not show your effect but its a great way to experiment without letting the smoke out of components 

Thanks for this Flux It.  Very intriguing. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I've re-read the last four pages.  Tediously repetitive doesn't begin to describe it.  It's surprising that there are even 3 readers here - as Poynty claims.  I'll see if I can get this argument back on track.

We claim that test results shown on over 500 screen downloads - and over 200 different settings to the applied duty cycle to our circuit - results in a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  This 'negative wattage' has no meaning.  It is a term that has absolutely NO RELEVANCE of any kind WHATSOEVER to our standard model.  And this because wattage must ALWAYS result in some value equal to but never greater than '1'.  So.  Either our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we have an alternate energy supply to the battery supply source.  Since our protocols conform to standard requirements then we explore the second option.  We propose that energy is, indeed, REGENERATED through Back Electromotive Force.  We've put that question to our academics in the two-part paper.

What you guys want to know is this.  IS there, IN FACT, proof of any kind of energy efficiency evident in the batteries?  Do they exceed their watt hour rating?  Now.  This is not something that needs to be debated.  It NEEDS TO BE TESTED.  BUT.  There is no point at ALL in testing this without academic endorsement.  This is because these forums are NOT the ultimate arbitrator of any such outlandish claim.  Open Source experiments and opinions are IGNORED.  And the objective surely - is to engage our mainstream scientists.  Therefore.  We'll GLADLY do a battery draw down test - that we can prove this - or not - provided ONLY that it actually engages our academics.  IT SHOULD BE VERY EASY for Professor Jones, for Poynty, for MileHigh, for all these 'vaunted' and 'so called' EXPERTS to solicit the engagement of just 2 of our academics.  I CAN'T.  I've tried but failed.  But then again.  I HAVE NO ACCREDITATION.  While THEY, on the other hand, most certainly do.  They must know SOME academics?  SURELY? One would expect that they would be able to pick up the phone and chat to their esteemed and revered from their various Alma Maters?  These 'forum personalities' should be able to get into this kind of engagement?  One would think?

So.  Poynty Point - Professor Jones - MileHigh - whoever - here's what's needed.  Either engage the active participation of 2 academic experts to evaluate the protocols for the battery draw down tests - OR - acknowledge our claim on the merits that have been presented - which means that we deserve your prizes BY DEFAULT - OR - attend a demonstration of our own experiments.  Your arguments 'against' this evidence have been thin and wanting in any scientific merit or evidence.  Ours on the contrary - have the indisputable merit of experimental EVIDENCE.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited - changed had to 'hand'

[poynt99]

My,

It's a good thing arguments like yours don't usually stand up in court, otherwise there would be twice the number of criminals running around on the loose than there already are. 

You can't get any academics to jump on-board with you eh? Well THAT should tell you something. Use your noggin.

How about we ask YOU to provide two accredited academics with fully disclosed credentials who back you up, to come forward endorsing your measurements and claims? THEN we can look at considering your application for the prizes.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

As ever, Poynty Point - your argument depends on definition.  This time what's needed is a definition of 'criminal'...

My.  It's a good thing arguments like yours don't usually stand up in court, otherwise there would be twice the number of criminals running around on the loose than there already are. 

Are you suggesting that the claim for the prize is criminal - or the refusal of that prize in criminal.  There are two sides to this argument.  LOL .  And, in any event, with either option, it would result in rather more than less criminals 'running around on the loose' if the claim doesn't 'stand up in court'.  This, because you also aver that any such claim/counterclaim - whatever - is advanced by criminals.  You see this I trust.  Your argument is 'fallacious' - spins around a load of nonsense - pivots on a poynty point.

You can't get any academics to jump on-board with you eh? Well THAT should tell you something. Use your noggin.

You're right.  Of course you are.  Our academics are most reluctant to engage.  And I get it that they won't engage with you either.  Golly.  That's tough.  BUT ALL IS NOT LOST.  I'll put money on it that this will be widely tested once our papers are published.  Then INDEED - if we get that much needed 'replication' after publication - THEN INDEED - we'll be able to come to you for our prize.  Retrospectively.  That's fine.

How about we ask YOU to provide two accredited academics with fully disclosed credentials who back you up, to come forward endorsing your measurements and claims? THEN we can look at considering your application for the prizes.

I'll try this again.  It's true that I'm now aware of many more sympathetic academics.  But I'm not sure that I want to expose them to the 'flak' they'll get for engaging prior to publication.  So.  I'll wait patiently.  It shouldn't be that much longer now.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

edited 'now'