another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[PhiChaser]

I can see where Poynt99 is going with this one Rosemary...
If you disconnect the battery negative (source) and the circuit doesn't keep running, then it isn't powering itself (obviously). If you hook the positive (ground side) of the circuit to a different (unconnected) battery (or the 'floating' side of your circuit as Poynt99 suggested) and it won't keep running, that is because it isn't self powering (again). The potential (difference) in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery. (My humble opinion at least as far as my admittedly limited electrical background goes...)
Now, that being said Rosemary... If you can CONTINUOUSLY generate a bunch of heat and NOT discharge your batteries AT ALL (or recharging themselves somehow as your circuit functions), then you have indeed found something AWESOME!!! Heat means work potential! Woot!
Er... So what gives?!?
BTW, you two crack me up!!

PC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again PhiChaser

I can see where Poynt99 is going with this one Rosemary...
If you disconnect the battery negative (source) and the circuit doesn't keep running, then it isn't powering itself (obviously).

We do disconnect the battery.  There is no question that the battery is not able to deliver energy.  Again - read that paper.  We propose that the battery is playing a passive role.  I'll see if I can find the extract.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication.

And that was proved by our test that we conducted with the use of capacitors.  In other words, for that oscillation to be that robust and self-supporting  it also needs access to the potential difference at the battery supply.  It does nothing to the battery voltage itself.

If you hook the positive (ground side) of the circuit to a different (unconnected) battery (or the 'floating' side of your circuit as Poynt99 suggested) and it won't keep running, that is because it isn't self powering (again).

How?  How does one expect a battery to play any part at all in the oscillation - when it's not even connected to the circuit? If you're proposing to put those batteries in parallel - then you will need a connection between their drain rails (positive terminals).  In which case?  Which battery is delivering and which isn't?  If you entirely disconnect the Drain rail - or positive terminal - then how does the circuit material take advantage of the potential difference that we've determined is required?  The potential difference in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery. But it is NOT DISCHARGING CURRENT. It's not the first time that the proposal has been made to develop an ENTIRELY different circuit - to get it to generate PRECISELY the same results.  But when has that ever been appropriate to science?

Now, that being said Rosemary... If you can CONTINUOUSLY generate a bunch of heat and NOT discharge your batteries AT ALL (or recharging themselves somehow as your circuit functions), then you have indeed found something AWESOME!!! Heat means work potential! Woot!

INDEED.  And IF there is any reason to DEPEND on conventional measurement protocols - THEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE.  Otherwise, which may come out in the wash is that conventional protocols are NOT ENTIRELY APPLICABLE.  And this because there is some aspect of electric current flow that has been overlooked.  I can only assure you that we have NEVER recharged the 6 batteries that are now powering our circuit.  That's now over a period of nearly 18 months I think it is.

We have anomalous test results that require detailed and thorough research to a level of expertise and budget that none of us collaborators can afford.  Therefore we have put all this evidence in a perfectly clear paper for this to be evaluated by experts.  The problem is that Poynty is posing as an expert.  And that is dangerous.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Edited.  All over the place.  But mostly just punctuation, spelling, and removing a reference glitch related to sizing.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Poynty Point,

I've been struggling to answer that list of misquoted quotes in your last post.  In fact I've been at this for most of the day - between cat naps, cooking and a bit of shopping.  Here's the concern.  If I didn't know better, and if it wasn't that people tend to allow their 'signature' writing styles.... to intrude  no matter what - I'd almost be inclined to think that there's a Professor Steven E Jones, lurking in the background of this last post of yours.      Golly.

This is because that slew of nonsense shows an uncharacteristic 'flair' for ABSOLUTE misrepresentation that you, Poynty Point - lack.  And this is mostly managed through the artifice of 'snips and 'snaps and what have you's.  If you are - indeed - there, JouleSeeker, Steve, Professor, PhysicsProf, whatever your preferred title, then PLEASE.  ENGAGE.    I'd be delighted if you would read through these last 400 posts - or thereby.  It may familiarise you with Poynty's argument.  If such it is.  And I'm rather relieved  to think that you're there at all.  God knows, Poynty needs all the help he can get.  And don't be daunted by the sheer weight of number of those posts.  You'll see that the most of them are actually just repeats of the same question.  Poynty has a 'thing' about asking the same thing over and over - in the hopes of testing whether or not he can do this into infinity.  It's his own rather esoteric dialogue with the more challenging aspects related to boundaries.  Are they infinite?  Or are they finite?  Where does repetition end?  And where does good sense begin?  And so it goes.  And then, INDEED.  I'm challenged to answer each and every one of those questions knowing full well that my answers will be ignored.  Not that I mind.  I'm happy to allow him any kind of 'handicap' that he chooses. It's just that I also think that we would all rather like to conclude this thread.  So.  If you're there - then when I address Poynty - it is inter alia - also addressed to you.  And correspondingly - if I lapse and address you - then indeed it is inter alia - also addressed to Poynty Point.  Take you pick. 

And as a kick off, I wonder if I could impose on you both to ONLY reference our current paper.  It seems that you're indulging in a rather liberal access to previous papers and current papers, and quotes out of context and quotes with NO 'snips?    One is rather inclined to think that the substance of the allegation -  matters not.  Just the telling of it does.  That's certainly following in the rich traditions established on these forums.  But it does very little to get to the substance of the argument.  You see this?  It relies on those techniques of propaganda which we've mentioned before.

I must say I was going to reference each and every 'snip.  But then I realised that I'd be falling into the trap of taking the trouble to deny.  And denial is always a rather weak argument.

Kindest regards to the one or the other of you - or indeed - to both.
Rosie

[poynt99]

No answer to that question then I suppose?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No answer to that question then I suppose?

No.  Not one that I can rustle up.  I'd hate to be accused of speculating.  Actually I could take a flier at this.   If that oscillation persisted then the chances are that it will increase the voltage potential over the battery that's being supplied current - in line with that drain rail.  And it will, correspondingly DECREASE the other.  But I have no clue.  It's not about our circuit.

Regards
Rosemary