another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

It seems that Poynty Point is refuting our claim based on the pretext of his own analysis of this.  Kindly note.  He has NEVER replicated our experiment.  His earlier work on this was confined to a simulation of the waveform where he showed equivalent results.  He then - rather lamely - argued against those very results by stating that our probes should be reversed to get a true value.  This is INCORRECT and flies in the face of the established protocols for the measure of electric energy. 

My argument is that he should evaluate our claim in the context of standard measurement protocols.  That, after all, has been a science that has been very precisely defined by very prestigious scientists EVERYWHERE.  You cannot simply recommend the reversal of the probes and then seriously expect to extrapolate either the correct data or the correct analysis applied to that data.  And those terms of his.  PIN AND POUT.  They are essentially FLAWED.  Our entire argument is based on the evidence that the energy on our circuit is from what he calls POUT.  Which, clearly is PIN - if, indeed, our claim is valid.  The claim itself - is DENIED by those rather exotic definitions of his, that he's tried to impose on everyone here.  I assure you that there are no academic electrical engineers who would adopt those 'quixotic' terminologies.  And the pity of it is that the contributing members here seem to unaware of this fact.

But the truth is hidden even deeper than this facile rejection of the evidence.  The most of the forum members have no idea that they're being led by the nose.  Nor do they know that this unity barrier that is now comprehensively BROKEN has - in fact - been comprehensively broken ALL OVER THE PLACE.  We do NOT have a monopoly on it.  Where we DO have considerable authority is that we took the trouble to write this down in a format that is required by any reviewed journal.  And those measurements are impeccable - as they're made by top of the range equipment.  They cannot, therefore, be discounted on the basis of an inherent flaw in the extrapolation of that data.

And proof of this agenda is right here in this - our challenge to Poynty.  IF indeed, he refuses to evaluate our evidence - then I'm afraid he would need to justify his reasons for this.  And that would require him to DETAIL THOSE MEASUREMENTS THAT HE CLAIMS ARE ERRONEOUS.  If he does not engage - it is because he DARE NOT.  Right now he is trying to dismiss the claims based on his OWN replication.  That's irrelevant.  His tests are not OUR CLAIM.  We take the test to levels where we can boil water.  Indeed, we can even exceed that much energy - but for very short periods as the transistors COOK.  And all this with the measurement of current flows that absolutely DO NOT JUSTIFY SUCH HUGE ENERGIES.  A simulation program will never show this.

In order to justify his rather RUDE dismissal - he also goes to some considerable pains to assure you all that - I am FANTASIZING.  IF, I am, IF all this is the product of my imagination - IF it's some kind of reckless claim based on an improbable DREAM - then in my defense.  I share that dream - that fantasy - with six qualified electrical engineers and over 100 engineers of varying skills who have either seen or replicated this - and, indeed, with our LeCroy and Tektronix oscilloscopes that keep on keeping on showing precisely these results.  We are all suffering from the very same delusion. 

I put it to you that Poynty relies on the wide dismissal of the very foundation to our claim - precisely because he CANNOT REFUTE THE CLAIM.  And he will beg off any TRUE evaluation of this because if he did - then he would have to acknowledge over unity.  Which is something that he will NEVER do.  And he also, therefore needs to assure all and sundry that I am variously MAD - or delusional - ignorant - and unschooled.  I don't care to comment.  But he would also then have to assure you that so is everyone else associated with this paper.  He has also tried to recommend that the paper is TO BE ENJOYED FOR ITS COMIC VALUE.  Again I cannot comment.  But in due course, and with their permission, I will schedule the names of those academics from international and famous academies - who have commended that paper on the basis of its clarity and who have, to a man, recommended publication.  It's a short list, thus far - barely a handful.  But that list is growing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
edited.  Change 'who' to 'that'.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Harti and Seven E Jones and guys,

I think my arguments have now put Poynt's objections to bed.  He'll either ignore these posts of mine or attempt - yet again - to scoff them.  What he will NEVER DO is actually evaluate the experiments themselves.  Whatever way he jumps he's shown a partiality that is entirely unprofessional.  And we now have clear and public evidence of a reluctance to accredit these test results - NOT because he CAN disprove them - but because he CANNOT.  I would therefore appeal to you all to discount Poynty's comments on any tests by anyone at all that were done before and after this challenge of ours.  They are not based on scientific assessments EVER.  They're based on DENIAL for the sake of DENIAL.

Now onto Harti and to Steven E Jones.  Harti's qualifications for testing this apparatus include the need to test this continually over the duration of 3 months - among other things.  He's entitled to nominate his terms but I would appeal to him that - at the basis of his 'test criteria' is the requirement for - not over unity - but perpetual motion.  Not sure that this point is relevant but most of the members here are interested in motorised energy.  Very difficult to measure.  Doable - but difficult.  It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to establish this alternate proposal as a basis of proof.  Evaluate a battery's performance in terms of its watt hour rating.  Then apply that battery to the over unity test.  When the amount of energy dissipated exceeds that watt hour rating - then over unity is evident.  That may be considered as more 'fair'.  And subject to this minor variation to his terms and conditions, then we can certainly do those tests and conclude them in a time that is more manageable.

We have a problem though with the 'fine tuning required for these tests.   It really does require those sophisticated instruments.  I trust to Harti's sincerity in finding these results.  But provided he can get access to this equipment he will not be able to precisely replicate our settings.  Therefore there will be no point in sending him our apparatus.  Can you, Harti - please propose a solution.  Is there a way you can access broadband oscilloscopes?  Please let me know.  Perhaps with a bit of persuasion you can get a supplier to loan one for the duration required.  If not, then I'll certainly try and rally.

Then for Steven.  I get it that you're knee deep in tests related to our Serbian (is it?) - Professor.  Let me know what time you have available for our own tests.  And, more to the point, please advise us on your evaluation of our measurement protocols.  We've still to establish that as the basis of the tests.  We've forwarded our papers to you.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[powercat]

Now onto Harti and to Steven E Jones.  Harti's qualifications for testing this apparatus include the need to test this continually over the duration of 3 months - among other things.  He's entitled to nominate his terms but I would appeal to him that - at the basis of his 'test criteria' is the requirement for - not over unity - but perpetual motion.

To suggest that something that ran for three months could be classed as perpetual motion is ridiculous  but typical of your flawed logic, you expect people to change everything to fit your criteria it's the same with your measuring.
As usual when you don't get your own way or you don't like what you hear it is always somebody else's fault.

If ther had been some successfull replications from members on this site then maybe some of your arguments might be worth consideration, but in all the years that you have been making these claims not one person here has ever successfully matched your claims. And you expect others to change their rules of entry and testing to suits your agenda 

[poynt99]

The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component. 

.99

[hartiberlin]

Hi Rosemary,
I have scanned now your 2 PDF files
and can not find any measurement results of the input power into the
Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 from the grid.

So these measurements are still missing and you certainly need to
add them to your other measurements and also use noninductive shunts.
Not these high inductance wire shunts !

As long as these measurements are not provided, it could all also be measurement
errors, cause you don´t know, how much power the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324
puts into the circuit.

Also it would be very wise to "unground" the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324,
so there will be no shielding ground current loops available, that could add power
from the shielding case ground currents.

So I would urge you to finally just do a circuit with a negative bias voltage onto the  Mosfets
and use a tap switch to a higher voltage spike to start the oscillation
and thus remove the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 completely from the circuit.

Also as this whole unit inclusive batteries is over 20 Kg it can not apply for the overunity prize.
See the OU prize conditions again.

Regards, Stefan.