another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Schubert ,
Because your post is rather long - I've taken the liberty of splitting the answers into 3 parts.  Otherwise the post becomes too confusing.

In any event, it's really difficult to understand your writing.  Here's my best shot.

I have started to read the first page of ROSSI JAP 1:
Two things shock me 
What's is a negative signal ? Your MOSFET are P or N type, (Yeah that damned MOSFET question again)... ?

The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.

Inductor STORE energy and does not "create" energy...

IF the inductor STORES ENERGY then we would NOT get more energy returned to the battery than was supplied BY the battery. 

Not sure if you're talking 'generally' here because the tests related to this are NOT on the first page ... In any event I'm assuming your reference is to our first test as it's also referenced in both our first and second paper.

1) The MOSFET is ON: current flow and dissipate in R (the inductance heater).
2) The MOSFET is OFF current flow back into  battery and dissipate a second time...
3) But problem the energy returning into the battery will  be less before charging the inductance...
4) So I'm highly worried here  And the fact is battery absorb very badly CEMF impulse. What   
    about the efficiency of this method !?
5) For OU operation the inductance must be return more energy than he have stored previously !!!
6) It's very very difficult to measure the energy contained in a spike if not nearly "impossible"...

1)First test and test in Paper 2 has NO FLOW OF CURRENT during the closed or 'ON' condition of the MOSFET.
2)The oscillation ramps UP during the period that the battery is DISCONNECTED.
3)There is considerably more energy being returned during that oscillating cycle than was EVER delivered by the battery.
4)What absorption?  The battery hasn't delivered any energy.
5)Indeed.  There is measurably more energy returned than was EVER delivered.
6)What spike?  We HAVE NO SPIKE. We have an oscillation that is well within the oscilloscope bandwidth to both record and measure

1st part

[Rosemary Ainslie]

2nd part

Where we do have evidence of 'spiking' is during the ON period of the switching cycle when the circuit is closed and the batteries connected. During which period there is absolutely nothing that is outside the capabilities of our oscilloscopes to measure.

[quote author=SchubertReijiMaigo link=topic=11675.msg310350#msg310350 date=1327140787IMPORTANT EDIT:
7) Reading after, you speak about self-oscillation, and you argue that the eventual energy come from here...

Here?  Not sure where you mean.  We argue that because the energy cannot be coming from the battery during the oscillation phase - then it must be coming from the material of the resistor.

So, if it this the case this no more a Rosemary Invention, you amplify energy from resonance: this a Rotoverter/ Resonance TESLA and Hector Perez tech...

INDEED.  There is absolutely NO Rosemary Invention.  EVER.  Nor is it a Rotoverter/Resonance TESLA and Hector Perez tech.  It is proposed to come from the binding fields that are responsible for coalesced matter.  Please read the second paper.  IF it is anyone's invention - which it isn't - then it belongs to our astrophysicists in their discovery of DARK ENERGY.  That was first proposed in the 1920's already

8 ) Amplification by resonance will only work if you have a Q > 1 circuit:...

Not sure what you mean by Q.  IF you're referring to inductance - then I'm not sure that there's any such thing as a circuit without any inductance.  We've worked this circuit off a 555 switch with ONLY LED's as the load.  It works fine.

9) high Q = Current/voltage amplification and a possibility to extract the amplified energy, in certain condition...

Again.  If our experimental evidence is to be believed then we extrapolate considerable heat from nothing but the energy from those oscillations.

10) Problem unless error of my part, the battery is equivalent a to big C and L is rather low...
      So the Q of the circuit is very poor, how you can amplify energy !?

We modestly propose a solution as explained in the second part of that 2-part paper.

2nd part

[Rosemary Ainslie]

3rd part

11) Crucial question do you use resonance amplification to operate this ?

Not that I know of.

12) You speak about Ltseung: look like he use the same system Q amplification, if he use resonance and Q amplification his FLEET is nothing more than modified Transverter/MRA tech...

I have NO IDEA what system Lawrence uses.  I have NEVER been able to understand his circuit.  But I'm reasonably satisfied that he is using that 'spike' that you referenced in your opening gambit.

13) Stanley Meyer and Joule Thief tech are very look like to high Q resonant amplifier the C (and R also) is the water cell in the WFC and C (and R also) is the CFL in the Joule Thief/Ringer...

I'm not qualified to comment.

15) If this theory is CORRECT it can explain nearly all the Overunity phenomena and devices that use Coils/Caps and pulsed or AC signal...

WHAT THEORY?  We have ONLY proposed the modest thesis that current flow may have a basic material construction of magnetic dipoles which then introduce a 'charge' to the justification or flow of that material.  the THEORY has already been proved.  Again.  By our astrophysicists.  Ellis et al.

16) For eventual "Debunker": This a theory not a fact, and like every theory in te world she's can be TRUE, FALSE, or even partially TRUE...

It is NOT a THEORY.  The results are experimentally EVIDENT.  Therefore the scientific evidence is that the thesis in support of the theory - MAY INDEED BE CORRECT.  To deny this one would need to disprove the evidence.  Not the theory.  It's already there.  Enshrined in all the proof required.  Those dark energy theorists are NOT SPECULATING.

And best regards to you too Schubert.
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Thank you about precision, so it's nothing to do with resonance theory (Hector Perez) who is he is not using Dark energy but rather Ambient Thermal (waste heat), Gravity and Time distortion effect to "fuel" the LCR resonant circuit... (To comply with conservation of energy...)

So it's more like dark energy conversion !!!

Thank you, SRM.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thank you about precision, so it's nothing to do with resonance theory (Hector Perez) who is he is not using Dark energy but rather Ambient Thermal (waste heat), Gravity and Time distortion effect to "fuel" the LCR resonant circuit... (To comply with conservation of energy...)

So it's more like dark energy conversion !!!

Thank you, SRM.

Indeed.  What we're hoping to alert all you clever scientists to is the possibility that all this energy is EVERYWHERE in magnetic fields.  And the minute one proposes that these fields are particulate - and more to the point - bipolar - then one has an ENTIRE resolution of MANY, MANY unresolved questions.  And nor does one then need to REINVENT physics.

Kindest again.  And thank Schubert - for taking the trouble not only to read all this - but to argue it.
Take good care,

Rosemary

edited. Changed 'to' to 'one'