another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Curious Chris,  I have just read your last post and have not yet answered this.  Give me a break.  I have only two hands and - according to Poynty Point - a seriously impaired mind to operate with.  I was indeed going to get around to this post.  It's ALARMING - on so many levels.

I had read it but I wanted you to cover it again for your own sake

Kind of you to keep my own interests in mind.  It's a first from one such as yourself.  Thank you - INDEED.

If any current was SOURCED from the device it would have recharged the capacitor(s) and provided the necessary potential difference to keep the cct running.

I've covered this point.  Unless you want to add to it?  Happy to consider all alternatives here.  Who knows?  Perhaps you know something about the properties of current that is NOT widely understood.  If so, then please advise us.

This simple test showed that any current you were seeing "flowing back into the battery" was little more than leakage current caused by the breakdown of the Zener diodes. Because you used an inductive load, when Q2 was switched off by the signal generator, the flux around the inductor collapses and causes a voltage spike (cemf). The voltage quickly exceeds the zeners breakdown voltage of 1000V and current flows back to the battery, because the voltage is quite high it 'recharges' the battery, but only by a very small amount.

If those diodes are leaking then it's a SERIOUS leak.  Upwards of 5 amps.  Golly.

I won't enter the discussion on the signal generator being the source of energy because I could not find any details about it. In any real test it must be factored into it. it sources current into the system so that MUST be taken into account. In general signal generators are quite low impedance as well, some I have seen as low as 50 ohms, which means that current can flow through the generator in ways that needs to be accounted for.

Which is why we took the trouble to measure it.

This next comment is the source of my concern.

If you still fail to see your own test as proof the system is UU. The next test is not so much harder.

Supply a large source of liquid (preferably repleneshing i.e. from a tap) place your heater element in the liquid (flow).
Calculate the watt hours the battery can give you
Calculate the wattage used by the heater element (remember to use Vrms or determine your duty cycle and use that to calculate the watt hours your load consumes)
Properly heatsink your mosfets so they don't fail during the test. (perhaps use the same water supply? you can buy liquid cooled heat sinks. just look up liquid cooled PC's)

We HAVE done this test.  Did you miss this in our papers?  What we did NOT do was test the battery to its duration.  Nor will we.  Because that's for comment and analysis by Chemistry experts.  None of the collaborators are chemists.

If its still running return to the capacitor problem and try and work out a "COGENT" explanation for why it failed. If you can't explain it in a simple scientific way don't try to make Shit Up. Just accept you don't know why the capacitor test failed and let the physicists determine why the caps failed.

So well put Curious Chris.  Couldn't have managed it better myself.  INDEED.  We DO NOT EXPLAIN THIS.  INDEED WE APPEAL TO OUR ACADEMICS TO EXPLAIN THIS.  INDEED WE DO NOT MAKE SHIT UP.  We have gone out of our way to ensure that the assessments for the observed anomalies are addressed by our academic experts.  It's in the paper.  Again.  Did you read it?

If you reach this point then do as I suggest. market your device in kit form. it will both generate an income for you and silence your critics.

I will be the first to buy one, provided it is suitably guaranteed of course.

If you don't mind I'll pass on this.  But feel free to build your own kit.  I'm not that anxious to sell you anything at all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly I'm getting seriously old.  I missed this comment entirely.

On to the flame wars you are having with poynt99. It is doing you no favours, You are behaving in such a condescending manner, and your verboseness indicates you seem to relish in it. What does that say about you as a person?

Just agree to disagree with Poynt99 and leave it at that.


CC

Flame wars?  Is that how you describe my hard fought efforts?  I don't think so.  A 'flame war' is NEVER RESOLVED.  By definition it comprises a slew of unsubstantiated allegations that are not logically argued.  It requires the heavily polarised opinion of all who engage.  It is confrontational and entirely destructive.  I hope that I NEVER engage in such nonsense.  It's not my style.  I prefer to keep things either clear - logical - or amusing.  If I rant - then I own up to it.  And I try - to the best of my ability - to stick to the POYNT.

On the other hand!  It seems to be the preferred tactic of Poynty Point.  He does NOT engage in argument as he simply CANNOT.  His grounds are too thin - brittle - shaky.  So.  He indulges in some rather facile attempts at posing either 'exasperation at my continuing stupidity' or 'indignation at my apparent lack of logic or understanding' and he DARE NOT ARGUE ANYTHING AT ALL.  This is because he cannot.

May I remind you Curious Christopher - that Poynty Point has replicated our experiment on his own simulation program.  That he saw precisely the same results.  And that he then proceeded to amass the most curious analysis that has ever confronted standard physics and conventional thinking - by seriously proposing to multiply a positive voltage - with a negative voltage to substantiate what was meant to be an outright refutation of that proof.  And NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, confronted him with any arguments against those utterly fallacious conclusions.  THEN.  As if that was not enough - he proceeded to endorse, allow and even engage in the most serious exercise in slander that has ever disgraced these forums.  Nor would I have done anything EXCEPT THAT he then also encouraged a renewed attack on yet another hopeful experimentalist.  That he ignored the evidence of Rossi's extraordinary technology and yet will engage in these facile attempts at pack hunting claimants as his daily forum diet was actually more than I could stomach. I decided - FOR ONCE - to challenge him on his own grounds.  And that challenge still holds.  Clearly he is unable to answer it.  I can stomach any personal insults.  But I most certainly will NOT allow his continuing agenda to deny evidence in the face of that evidence.  If he is seriously looking for OU - then ARGUE OUR CLAIM.  We have measured proof.

Regards,
Rosemary

[WilbyInebriated]

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.

are you really that asinine? you accuse rose of what you have just committed... 
as evidenced by the record...

Let's get back to your original comments here Chris
Where has anyone, ever, in this proud history of quantum electromagnetic engineering - ever been able to isolate an electric current - store it in a capacitor - away from its source - and then use it to continuously supply an electric current?  Are you seriously proposing that we first perform feats of magic where we deplete all potential difference on a circuit - and then expect current to 'magically' ignore this lack and still operate under conditions required in term of inductive laws?

you cherrypicked and completely avoided answering her...  i submit you are the troll. i assume you will continue to cherrypick and avoid an answer...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for this nonsense.

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.
Rather than pay heed to those who wish to help, if they don't agree implicitly with you you denigrate them as fools. The only true fools on this forum are the ones who do not question another's claims.

When I need help from the likes of you - Curious Chris - then I'll ask for it.

OU is simple to prove, Pin < Pout. Its not beyond mere mortals. My second form of proof is beyond reproach which is obviously why you ignored it.

I did not ignore it.  Kindly refer to my previous post.

You claim infinite OU, Err sorry infinite COP, by that definition your one cct should be able to power every device in the world and still be hardly touched.

That would, indeed, be very nice.  IF ONLY.  But it is NOT our claim - and NOR IS IT FEASIBLE.  May I remind you.  Our arguments conform to the standard model.  I'm not sure it allows a simple capacitor to power the whole wide world.  But again.  Wouldn't that be nice.

I don't doubt you will continue with your rant. Good luck with that. Its a shame because you are obviously very intelligent and your ability with the written word is outstanding. In any other circumstance I would admire you.

I can ASSURE YOU that my intelligence is DECIDEDLY AVERAGE.  It does NOT take exceptional intelligence to either UNDERSTAND the standard model of physics or to argue the simple requirements in power analysis.  THAT is the issue.  Not my abilities. 

If I was looking to win a popularity contest then there's an outside chance that I'd fail.      But my popularity or otherwise is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that we have an over unity claim based on experimental evidence - that Poynty Point is denying.  And I most urgently require that to be addressed.  Unless, of course, you recommend that I simply say nothing and allow a valuable potential technology to be BURIED by POYNTY and his pack of protesters?  I'm not inclined to oblige you.

And regarding this postscript? What exactly is your point?  I don't think I've argued against it.

1 Watt = 1 joule / 1 second

Kindest regards
Rosemary

ADDED 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

WILBY - just seen your post.  THANK GOD YOU'RE STILL THERE.  It's been lonely here.  THANK YOU.

Kindest as ever
Rosie