another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Derrick, may I remind you of my private message when you suggested that my knowledge of electronics could be greater than the 'others'.

Derrick, I've just seen this.  You really need to believe everyone who claims this.  I'm a CLUTZ on electronics.  I ONLY know fundamental physics.  We're all arguing this from different levels of expertise.  And all I'm doing, within the ambit of my rather limited knowledge - is showing what our electronic experts have missed - for a really long time.  Which means only this.  I'm reasonably logical.  But you'll find, on the whole, that logic is usually the best argument.

Regarding your questions, I am not sure that I can answer this with the required competence.  Let me know, and if you really want an answer I'll get one of our collaborators to do this.  I may be able to get my head around them - but the truth is that I'm fighting a war here - and it's taking up my time.  I'm not even answering my emails.  And I've got a flood of them to get around to.

Take care, and hang in here.  Maybe we'll get some answers - eventually.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

SO.  TO ANSWER THIS IN DETAIL

A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof.

We most certainly HAVE done this test.  Or a more definitive variation thereof that is much more to the poynt.

Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.

It was NOT done on the experimental apparatus nor is it required.  It's the principle that needs to be addressed.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.

There is nothing to stop you doing your own tests.

And of these two options...

If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".

then guess what?  The 'current returning rail' stays permanently LIT notwithstanding the use of LED's - which we all know are 'polarised' In which case?  There's NO FURTHER PROOF REQUIRED TO SUPPORT OUR CLAIM.  How nice is that?

If you're SERIOUSLY proposing that this as a DEFINITIVE TEST then our demonstration is also very quickly managed.  So. If this is now a considered option for your PRIZE Poynt.99 - ever recurring - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We can set up that test in no time at all.  In fact.   Just do your own.  Either way it's going to cost you your prize money.  And for that matter Professor Steven E Jones' rather pretty coins.

Again,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

That's all you have to say about it? Come on, Rosemary.

Is your math CORRECT, or is it WRONG? Can you find ANYONE who agrees with your calculations? Is your main conclusion based on your math, or not? As I have shown, when the math is done correctly, you actually used about one twentieth the battery capacity during your test, an insignificant amount that would not result in a no-load voltage drop in a good lead-acid battery. Your conclusions are based on incorrect math..... AND SO YOU MUST RETRACT THEM, or show how I am wrong. No tests are even necessary until you resolve this issue about your math.

Deal with it Rosemary. Your claims are based on your math errors and your willful misdefinition of terms like the Joule. YOUR ERRORS INVALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS and no testing is required nor should be performed until you GET YOUR MATH STRAIGHTENED OUT and acknowledge the consequences.

[poynt99]

If you're SERIOUSLY proposing that this as a DEFINITIVE TEST then our demonstration is also very quickly managed.  So. If this is now a considered option for your PRIZE Poynt.99 - ever recurring - then LOOK NO FURTHER.  We can set up that test in no time at all.  In fact.   Just do your own.  Either way it's going to cost you your prize money.  And for that matter Professor Steven E Jones' rather pretty coins.

Then please DO indulge us. I am QUITE CERTAIN all 3 readers here would very much like to see this clearly demonstrated in a video. Only caveat is, it MUST be performed on the actual apparatus referenced in the paper and used in the video. Otherwise, it's simply not valid.

[PhiChaser]

I've just seen Gravock's and Derrick's posts.  Those MATTER.  Guys.  Apologies.  Let me ASSURE YOU that I am very well aware of the fact that that analysis was skewed.  Had I taken the trouble to read the entire post I would have deleted that part.  I ONLY referenced the entire post because I saw manifold reference to history repeating itself - as well as an EXAMPLE to show how thoroughly this battery draw down test had been referenced.  Poynty CLAIMED that it was the for the first time that I'd offered this.  Here was the PROOF that it was not.

In any event.  You are right to doubt my lack of expertise.  I don't think I've EVER tried to pass myself off as anything more than an amateur.  And as such I am certainly well qualified.  I'm an amateur in the true sense of the term as I LOVE PHYSICS.  In fact, I distinctly recall advising Derrick of this in some considerable detail.  My knowledge - if I have any - relates to some insights that are related to Dark Energy.  That is my only interest.  And these experiments are only related to the proof of this field model.  I have not got the required skills to develop this as required.  Which is PRECISELY why I am open sourcing it - in the first instance.

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

@ Rosemary,
Thanks for saying my posts matter! I believe that these other posts here matter just as much (except Replaced LMAO!!), some a lot more. Have you seen the videos mentioned? DID you read the PDF about the scope?
You're right, I did send you a PM asking if you could help me design a simple (well...) circuit or for your input on it. Why? Well you look at things differently than someone with a lifetime working in electronics. Bad choice on my part since by your own admission you are a 'klutz' in electronics, an admitted 'amateur', yet you argue like you are the only one (on this forum anyways) who can understand your circuit... It seems there are a couple individuals here (to me at least!!) who understand the principles of your 'circuit' better than you do.
Why are you trying to argue these things when you're obviously, (admittedly!) out of your depth? Simple calculation errors and suddenly there are millions of joules floating around that are 'Dark Energy'?? A negative reading on a scope and it becomes 'Dark Energy'? Better start pumping that stuff out of the hold, your circuit is starting to sink... Sorry (mostly). Sarcasm comes easily when I'm low on caffeine...
Your reluctance to explore other reasons for your 'oscillations' still leaves me scratching my head...
There are some serious questions to answer up there before these people are going to continue to try and help you 'prove' your theory Rosemary. Good luck to you on that!

I guess in South America 'personal message' means 'copy/paste'?
Nice.
I'm looking forward to the NEW math BTW...

Regards,

Derrick