another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And again, Guys - girls,

Unfortunately - when and IF you post on this thread - then you'll probably get a private message from one or more of our 'detractors'.  This communication - which is conducted in 'secrecy' and behind 'closed doors' is not only an abuse of the forum facility - but an abuse of OPEN SOURCE.  May I ask you to please ignore the communication - or ask that the opinion is aired on the forum.  Else - I'm fighting shadows.  And that's simply not fair.  We've been heavily compromised by ALLEGATION.  And allegation that is also conducted through whispers in dark corners?  That we can't fight.

Better still ignore the communication.  Or - if you want to check any facts that you may be inclined to believe.  Then just ask.  Before I end this thread - hopefully soon now - then I will MOST CERTAINLY give a cogent list of those abuses against this technology - so that you can all see the extent to which this group of detractors has gone - to frustrate this technology.  And you REALLY need to ask 'why'?

Regards again
Rosemary

[powercat]

What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

Well said 99 my hat off to you sir for your perseverance,
if there was an award for contradiction and twisting of the truth Rosemary would have won it years ago.
Most of us remember a nice member called Fuzzy tomcat  that used to post here until he got involved with Rosemary's claims and I think it almost drove him insane.

Sadly I don't think Rosemary can ever admit her flawed judgement after-all what would she have left in her life if it wasn't for her extravagant claims.
it's a shame we have these arguments but it's important that People understand the truth.

And for anyone new here that thinks I am part of a conspiracy, please please click on Rosemary's name and then look through all her previous post and see the truth yourself.
Over the many years it always comes down to the sad fact that her claims of OU are just that claims and nothing but claims.

Rosemary's determination to carry on claiming her circuit produces free energy is now legendary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Perfectly clear? If it was perfectly clear WHY is this particular discussion going on for this long??? (My own contribution notwithstanding..) As far as experts to research your findings, why don't you go to your local college and find some grad students to look at what you've got. My point is don't just look here...

This is another intriguing question.  You will notice that our paper is a collaboration between myself and 5 others.  One of those collaborators is partially qualified but, as a mature student he's now working on his Electrical Engineering degree. The other four are credentialed.  One is even working on his doctoral thesis - in an unrelated matter.  One has a Masters degree and another and Honours degree.  None of them are interested in going 'open source'.  This, because the dialogue tends to become confrontational - as you've seen.  And all the more so - when the claim is as confrontational as ours.  The requirement therefore is to write a paper.  Put our findings in clear terms - and let the academic expert iron out the issue.  We all are in perfect consensus.

However.  What we're pointing to is a breach in the unity barrier that should not, technically, be possible.  There is nothing comfortable about looking at evidence that flies in the face of general academic understandings - the more so as these men are our authority.  They're actually TEACHING us all we know about electrical engineering.  Now.  It's generally acknowledged amongst electrical engineers that current flow is the result of the flow of electrons.  I'm not sure if you've read my comments about this.  But - just for the record - here they are.  You don't have to read the whole thing.  The pertinent points are in the first two pages or thereby.  And what it shows is that, actually, even in the application of this widely applied and most profoundly simple concept is a mishmash of contradictions that beggar belief.  Here's that link.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html

So.  When an entirely uncredentialed rather old woman - from the back of beyond - comes up with proposals that electric current flow may be the movement of magnetic particles - then - appropriately - there's a howl of protest.  What you and I are listening to - here and on every thread that I've been involved in - is that howl of protest.  It is the nature of the claim.  NEVER in the history of science - has any profoundly different explanation been imposed on any aspect of science - without that HOWL.  And the louder it is - it is precisely proportionate the level of 'difference' associated with that thinking.

Which is why I have been careful - always - to assure all and sundry - that INDEED - this is NOT in contradiction to known physics.  Save that it would mean an abundance of energy that has, heretofore, been associated only with Dark Energy - and, by definition therefore, it is neither perceptible - nor accessible.  When you put that particle in a magnetic field construct - then it EXPLAINS all the forces.  And it makes this energy supremely tangible.  Then it appears that this 5th force, that has been marching alongside our known 4 forces, rather quietly and unobtrusively, looking to be seen, is actually the PRIMARY source of our energy.  And what it also begs is the possibility that the electromagnetic interaction is only a secondary phenomenon. As indeed are the strong and weak nuclear force and gravity.

Now, I'm not going to allude to any history.  Because that would be an open invitation for a renewed attack.  In any event I don't need to.  All that is needed is to state that IF indeed, this concept is right, then frankly, we have solutions to our energy problems that are not resolved by this technology, not even by LENR - but by both these and many, many much more simple applications that require nothing more than the careful shaping of magnets   And this would deliver an abundance of energy that will put our nuclear power supplies, our coal burning or whatever generators, our cars, our aeroplanes, the entire thrust of our extant technologies - into the dark ages.

But it's not easy to introduce new concepts.  God knows.  I try.  And the ONLY reason I keep doing this in full view of the public - exposing myself thereby to the full force of that 'attack' - is because this knowledge NEEDS MUST GO TO EVERYONE.  Else we'll be trapped in that horrible condition where we rely on the EXPERT for our right to engage in science.  The rather noble art of science relies NOT on authority - but on enquiring minds.  Else it simply wont evolve.  And enquiring minds are likely to confront science with uncomfortable and inconvenient truths.  I would not recommend anyone follow in my footsteps if they're anxious to promote their popularity.

Regards,
Rosemary.

[PhiChaser]

Thanks for the reply Rosemary!
Yes, PC is just fine. (My real name is Derrick just for the record.) Glad I got it almost right.
I can see that those 'body diodes' are what is unique about those MOSFETS. Regarding those: Your circuit still looks like it has a mobius loop in those MOSFETS to me. 
In reference to the battery questions earlier, I KNOW that you need a completed circuit to the source to extract that potential. I thought perhaps you had somehow 'moved' that potential into your MOS 'grid' (which is why I had all those 'broken' ways to wire the circuit, see?).
I should step back a bit and keep reading (as always). As far as explanations go (sorry to jump around, I just woke up), I've always found it beneficial to come to a consensus before advancing the next proposal. Lots of proposals around here but not much consensus.
Rosemary, have you tried building the same circuit using off-the-shelf parts?? Seems to me like that would be the best way to truly solidify your claims. Open forum projects are great until the parts start becoming too exotic/expensive... How much do those things cost?
If you could build your circuit with cheap-o parts there would be a greater likelihood that more experimenters would try to verify your results. Makes sense right?
Again, great fun reading your threads! I need more coffee...
I am SO glad the project I'm working on doesn't have any electronics LOL!!! (At least so far heh..)

PC

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt, if you're still there.  I wonder if you could ask MileHigh to get his head out of those clouds and his feet on the ground.  He's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage.  And he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  It needs to reach Q1's source rail.  So it IGNORES that signal?  It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S.  And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery.  That's unlikely.

If he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's  source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg.  Which means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall.  That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level.  Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics.  And show him the schematic again.  Here it is.

Q2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative.  IT FLOATS.  I really need a shot of this to show you guys.  Hopefully soon. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Small edits.  Can't remember them all.