another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

GL,

The 12V battery connection is a little unusual. You won't be able to get any appreciable power output from this connection, not that that was your intent.

I have redrawn your first diagram slightly (diagram A), leaving out the inactive Q2 MOSFET.

Try moving the negative of the 12V battery as in B and see if it still oscillates. This of course is a more conventional connection.

.99

Poynty?  This is jolly decent of you.  Thank you very much.  And keep it up.  We may yet get to the same page.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

GL.

You may want to try this. Your original circuit will not be able to deliver any appreciable power to a load.

You need stray inductance in the gate, and a good AC return path to make this form oscillate. Hence the 10" of wire, and the capacitor. No guarantee this will oscillate, as I have not simulated your circuit. But you will see that this is getting in line with the circuit I posted before that I will be building for my tests.

.99

[poynt99]

GL, you've noted the following at OUR:

Instead Q1 will conduct a small current through the L1 coil and from the battery.
Now because Q1 is conducting then Q1 will provide a small voltage to the gate of Q2.
This will make Q2 conduct current and the oscillation starts.

I believe this is quite possibly how it is working. It might then be a unique oscillator.

As such, I've redrawn your circuit yet again, but this time with emphasis on Q2 (it drives the load). You may notice that the 9V is simply turning Q1 partially (or fully) ON so as to channel V_D to Q2's Gate.

In the second part of the drawing, I've attempted to simplify the circuit by eliminating Q1, and providing bias to Q2 through Rbias. It would be interesting to see if that would still work.

I would also be interested to see if the first circuit still works with wire "p" removed. I believe it may be unnecessary. There is a balancing act between the negative Q2 bias applied by the 9V, and a positive bias applied by Q1. It's just a question of whether the negative bias is even required, because we know that Q2 ultimately needs a positive bias to operate.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, 

Here's an extract from our paper to remind you all what our submission is about. 

It is an explicit emphasis of this paper that there are no empirical conclusions drawn from any of the tests detailed herein. We have simply pointed to the repeated evidence of a measured instantaneous negative wattage that, as mentioned, has no relevance within the standard model. The indications are that this has a potential to enhance energy efficiencies beyond its assumed limits.  And this requires further research and investigation that is beyond the budgetary constraints of the collaborators.

Therefore the intention of this paper is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this and any new technology. The fact that these results can be simulated should enable an easy overview of these claims and also enable a wide range of participants to evaluate this evidence. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies. It must be remembered that this work has been open sourced and is not therefore patentable. It is hoped that further research in this field will follow suit in the interests of promoting a thorough understanding of this and the field study that preceded these experiments. Also we have not found reviewed publication of prior work into these effects, constituting, as it does, a marked departure from standard concepts related to the transfer of electric energy. This, therefore, constitutes a seminal study and it is therefore understood to limit the citations.


Regards,
Rosemary

Sorry guys.  I seem to have duplicated a paragraph - that I've now deleted. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Groundloop,

I want to assure you that none of us consider any tests beyond what you've proposed - as being either required or relevant.  We are well aware of your expertise to determine what you, yourself require.  And I am entirely satisfied that - if anyone can guide us to some kind of resolution of of some of these anomalies, then it is indeed, such as yourself.

What I'm trying to make very clear - is that we are all of us well acquainted with your considerable skills and I, personally, would not presume to advise you on any tests that you think is appropriate.  I am more than happy to rest on your advices.

With the very best and kindest of regards to you Groundloop,
Rosemary