another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty,

The oscillation most certainly does not depend on length of lead.  We've easily generated that oscillation using entirely different circuits with the signal from 555 switches.  And where  the loads are nothing but LED's and/or virtually any kind of load up to and including a solder iron.  In both these examples it results in a negative wattage.  And in none of those tests - and certainly in neither of these two load test examples that I've mentioned here - were the loads connected to our own batteries. AND in at least one test we've used an alkaline type battery.  Can't remember what type but it's those typical torch battery numbers. At a guess I would say that the length of wiring - including the wires in the switching circuit - was under 16 inches - or thereby - including the connections to those batteries.

Therefore, with respect, this is simply not correct.

The circuit bursts into oscillation due to the bias and a healthy serving of stray inductance in the Gate and Source leads.

While parasitic oscillations are most certainly the result of transistors in parallel - there is no paralleling in that 555 switching configuration.  Just the use of 2 transistors.  And that oscillation has very little in common with parasitic oscillations as it PERSISTS for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1. 

The oscillation becomes amplified where she is taking her so-called "battery" measurement, because the probe is actually on the load, and NOT the battery terminal.

THIS MUCH IS CORRECT.  We have LITERALLY applied the probe DIRECTLY to the terminal of our own batteries - applied a single 12 volt battery to the test apparatus - and YET WE SEE THAT WILD VOLTAGE SWING ACROSS THOSE BATTERIES - when it gets into oscillation.  I've already argued this.  Not only that but I believe I've informed you fully on those results.  They were those early claims of yours where you again insisted that everything was due to the lengths of wire that we use.  But back to the point.  The probe is only able to read voltage potential of the collapsing magnetic fields from the circuit material.  It most certainly is NOT reading the battery voltage.  And why would that be?  Could it be that the battery is 'disconnected'?  At both gates - Q1 and Q2?  If NOT, and as I've argued - we MUST therefore conclude that the battery is DISCHARGING at a rate of delivery that defies the evidence. 

There is a substantial length of wire connecting the two, and hence a significant amount of inherent inductance. The voltage at the load can be on the order of 200Vpp or so.

There it is again.  Do you mean by Vpp - Voltage peak to peak OR voltage point to point or virtual power plant - OR WHAT?  It would help if you would define your terms.

This is ONE of the fundamental flaws in the measurements that her team has taken, and misinterpreted as "the battery voltage". Clearly it is not, and I've pointed this out several times. Read my analysis Schubert, and you will see exactly what I am referring to.

Not at all.  I've explained this.  And may I please ask you to read OUR claim on OUR experimental evidence?  As opposed to your own?  Our results are significantly at variance.  The only similarity is that you also compute a negative wattage.

Regards,
Rosemary

Edited.
Sorry I've been struggling to get rid of that nested quote.  Golly.
And have now also changed 'so' to 'NOT'.  That was a serious oversight.  lol
Had to change 3 transistors to 2 transistors.  Sorry.  I've just seen it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Anyway Poynty, here's the thing.

The nub of this argument pivots on the some kind of explanation for the positive voltage that is measured during each half of that oscillation.  The standard assumption is that this is being delivered by the battery supply - your first argument based on the fact that there's a commonality at the positive terminals.  IF this argument were valid then it would mean that variously

.   The battery was able to find a path through the gate of Q2 where you argued that there would be a positive signal. 
.   BUT - if the battery is discharging then it is discharging in the region of upwards of 72 000 amps per battery - per oscillation.  Clearly this is not correct.
.   Also.  It would then be able to deliver either through Q1 or Q2 AS REQUIRED.
.   Which would result in a continuous discharge at a greater than zero voltage.  Which is not evident.  It crosses zero every time.
.   The ground of the signal generator is not applying a positive signal to the gate of Q2.  It's applied a positive signal to the source rail.
.   Under all circumstances and in terms of the standard model - this would BLOCK CEMF.

IF every half of each oscillation was delivered by the battery then notwithstanding - the wattage measured to have been delivered is still LESS than the wattage that is measured to have been returned to the battery supply.  I'm only arguing this to remind you that the evidence suggests that THERE IS SIGNIFICANT ENERGY CAN BE MEASURED ON THE CIRCUIT WHILE THE BATTERY IS APPARENTLY AND ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED.

Regards.
Rosemary
edited.
Modified those bullet points and the emphases

[poynt99]

.   The ground of the signal generator is not applying a positive signal to the gate of Q2.  It's applied a positive signal to the source rail.

You've misunderstood the full meaning of what I said.

The first inversion is caused by connecting the FG- to the Q2-Gate, and the FG+ to the Q2-Source. It would normally be connected in reverse of this.

The second inversion is caused by introducing negative offset to the FG (as shown in the video), such that the FG output, if measured with a + probe on the + terminal and - probe on the - terminal, would measure a negative voltage when the FG output is in a LOW state, and a 0V or slightly positive voltage when the FG output is in a HI state.

The resulting Q2 V_GS voltage is such that Q2 will turn partially ON (the bias) and completely OFF.

As Q1 G-S is connected in reverse of Q2, Q1 is always OFF with this setting.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You've misunderstood the full meaning of what I said.

The first inversion is caused by connecting the FG- to the Q2-Gate, and the FG+ to the Q2-Source.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first inversion?  What inversion?  Are you talking about an inverted waveform across the battery?  Or across the load?  Nor do we connect the FG- (presumably function generators ground) to the Q2's Gate.  We connect the signal generator's ground to the source rail.  It's difficult to argue this unless we use the same words to mean the same things.   

It would normally be connected in reverse of this.

How?  I simply don't understand what you're trying to say.  Normally one connects the probe EXACTLY as we show it.  We NEVER change that position.  The only thing that changes is the applied signal to that probe.  Which can be positive or negative.  When it's negative then it opens the circuit and prevents a discharge from the battery.  When it's closed or positive then it allows a discharge from the battery.  And the readings - positive or negative - are relative to the battery supply. BUT ALWAYS IT STAYS WERE WE PUT IT.  AT THE GATE OF Q1.

The second inversion is caused by introducing negative offset to the FG (as shown in the video), such that the FG output, if measured with a + probe on the + terminal and - probe on the - terminal, would measure a negative voltage when the FG output is in a LOW state, and a 0V or slightly positive voltage when the FG output is in a HI state.

Again, with respect.  I'm not following you.  What inversion?  And which terminals?  Are you referring to the battery terminals? 

The resulting Q2 V_GS voltage is such that Q2 will turn partially ON (the bias) and completely OFF.

As Q1 V_GS is connected in reverse of Q2, Q1 is always OFF with this setting.

Nope.  I just don't understand you.  I'm struggling here.  Let me know what you mean by inversion and I'll give this another shot. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

As an example; If one was to take the FG leads that are connected to the G and S of a MOSFET (normally + to the Gate, and - to the Source), and swap them around, THAT would be an inversion.