another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

No.  Not one that I can rustle up.  I'd hate to be accused of speculating.

Strange, you shouldn't have to speculate if you know how the circuit works. Allow me to give you a clue, even though according to you I have none.

If one could indeed separately measure the current flow in both directions, reference the positive terminal of the battery, one would see, according to your notion that more energy is RETURNED to the battery than is SUPPLIED by it, a higher net average current flowing into the battery than what is flowing out.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Strange, you shouldn't have to speculate if you know how the circuit works. Allow me to give you a clue, even though according to you I have none.

If one could indeed separately measure the current flow in both directions, reference the positive terminal of the battery, one would see, according to your notion that more energy is RETURNED to the battery than is SUPPLIED by it, a higher net average current flowing into the battery than what is flowing out.

Poynty.  I wonder if we could impose on you to draw...  that circuit?  That way we're referring to the...  same thing.

Rosie pose

EDITED.
Corrected the punctuation in line with my preferred style of writing.  Much needed.

[poynt99]

Poynty.  I wonder if we could impose on you to draw that circuit?  That way we're referring to the same thing.

Use the same bulb and diode for each leg, and one has a real simple method to see which path has the higher current, or IF there is current in each path at all. One might have to experiment with a few different 12V bulbs.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Use the same bulb and diode for each leg, and one has a real simple method to see which path has the higher current, or IF there is current in each path at all. One might have to experiment with a few different 12V bulbs.

We've done that test.  Cast your mind back to the post by woopy.  It was certainly made within the last two days - so it's not that far back.  You may recall?  Or not?  There may yet come a day in our lives that you actually show proof of ever reading anything at all that I write.  NOW.  Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then.  THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK.  The oscillation persists.  With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number.  No need to speculate.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

LOVE the new name, by the way (BTW).  Brings to mind the 'rat pack' and a really interesting period in our history.  Also runs parallel to those early insights related to the need for 'missing energy' - now widely referred to as 'dark energy' and still in line with Einstein's preferred term 'Aether'.  Perhaps you could advise MileHigh about this.  He's hopelessly - or maybe 'hopefully' confused about the physics required in support of the evidence of all that dark matter.  lol.  Or as he puts it lolololol   

[poynt99]

We've done that test.  Cast your mind back to the post by woopy.  It was certainly made within the last two days - so it's not that far back.  You may recall?  Or not?  There may yet come a day in our lives that you actually show proof of ever reading anything at all that I write.  NOW.  Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then.  THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK.  The oscillation persists. With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number.  No need to speculate.

I've not seen YOUR test results with this. On your circuit this test would not be possible with LED's in place of the bulbs, as they would burn out in an instant, or at least one would anyway.

Also, which 'rail' stays lit?