another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

SRM,

Rosemary won't perform that test (or ANY for that matter) for any number of excuses, we've seen many.

Anyone making a wild claim like hers ought to have the sense of mind to validate their claim on their own by at least one other method. But alas, Rosemary has not provided corroborating data from an additional test of any sort.

My dear Poynty Point,
As ever you - 'error'.  We've validated our claim through 'multiple' alternative tests - all detailed in our paper.  We've proved all the corroborating data required - to prove our experiment under review - which are NOT those multiple alternative tests.  And I am MORE THAN WILLING to conduct the battery draw down test.  Just make it worth my while to go to that trouble.  Here's the condition.  That having completed the test then NO ACADEMIC anywhere - will argue the relevance of our result.  You see.  I'm tired of the multiple alternative tests that you want us to engage in to simply 'while away my time'.  It needs to be a conclusive test - like the battery draw down test that Schubert proposed - and Magsy.  And you SURELY know what our conditions are to doing that test?  They're a REASONABLE minimum requirement to engage at all. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And lest that answer to Schubert is now off focus - here it is again.
R.
Hi Schubert,

In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing,

Interestingly - it sort of performs as Poynty claimed it would - that there is ALWAYS a path for the battery through either Q1 or Q2's gate to source.  That's where the diagram errs - or as Poynty puts it - 'errors'.  Q2 has no source leg for the discharge except through Q1's Gate.  And Q1's gate has an applied negative signal that would repel any discharge from the battery.  Can you model that too Schubert?  It would be most interesting - but calls for an 'unconventional' MOSFET diagram.  I'll post the schematic again.  Q2 is on the left Q1 on the right.

seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?

No.  It's only required that there's a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of Q1.  It works fine to generate that oscillation.  Which is extraordinary - because under these conditions - ie with the use of just one FET with ONLY an applied negative signal - then the battery is unarguably NOT delivering any energy.  The question then is HOW does the positive half of each oscillation develop?

In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...

EXACTLY.  Which is why we claim an anomaly.  We get MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered.  AND we've got some pretty hefty heat signatures over the workstation - RL1.

So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?

I'm well aware of Bedini's claims.  Our's is ONLY different in that we've got this on a solid state system - with heat dissipated rather than motors.  It seems that the 'recharge' to the battery is still the same.  Not sure because I've never tested this on motors.

1) Take two same and charged battery.2) Running one circuit directly...3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!6) If not, time to try another things...7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...8 ) END.

This is PRECISELY the battery draw down test that I keep proposing to Poynty.  I'll do this gladly.  But I would need to know that I'm not wasting my time when I run this test.  The last thing any of us want is another DEBATE.  It needs to be acknowledged that this will be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  And to get it there - we'd need the test parameters and protocols defined by an academic expert.  Poynty et al do not have the required expertise - unfortunately.  Not that they're not experts.  They possibly are.  But they're not experts in Power Engineering - which is what's required to get these results acknowledged.   

Let me know if you can vary that design against this diagram that I'm attaching Schubert.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Just one question why applying a negative signal to Q1 !?
Sorry but I don't understand NMOSFET require a POSITIVE voltage to activate it (Generally +5 V)...
A negative voltage doesn't activate it !!!


For the test that I have proposed, I will support your claims when the battery will survive  significantly  the other battery...
The significantly (two times, three times, ten times ? ) must be determined before the test.
Be sure that batteries are the same and equally charged, a test like this can be easily falsified...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Just one question why applying a negative signal to Q1 !?Sorry but I don't understand NMOSFET require a POSITIVE voltage to activate it (Generally +5 V)...A negative voltage doesn't activate it !!!

WE KNOW THIS Schubert.  We put this 'Q-array' together by accident.  They were intended to be paralleled.  Purely due to my own stupidity - I got them attached 'wrongly'.  But - we were all SURPRISED at the result.  And there is no conventional explanation.  Can you do a sim on this 'alternate' config?  If so - PLEASE.  I'd love to see your result.

For the test that I have proposed, I will support your claims when the battery will survive  significantly  the other battery...The significantly (two times, three times, ten times ? ) must be determined before the test. Be sure that batteries are the same and equally charged, a test like this can be easily falsified...

I'll detailed my own proposed parameters for these tests when we've got the engagement of some experts - as mentioned.

Thanks for those efforts on your sim - Schubert.  Much appreciated.  Let me know if you can change the MOSFET config - or simply use the one with a continually applied negative signal.  I'd be most interested in the result.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Ah Damn, the forum eaten my message again, look like they are some bug out there...

WE KNOW THIS Schubert.  We put this 'Q-array' together by accident.  They were intended to be paralleled.  Purely due to my own stupidity - I got them attached 'wrongly'.  But - we were all SURPRISED at the result.  And there is no conventional explanation.  Can you do a sim on this 'alternate' config?  If so - PLEASE.  I'd love to see your result.

So, it was just an error...

I'll detailed my own proposed parameters for these tests when we've got the engagement of some experts - as mentioned.

Ok, I wait for the result, maybe also for measuring the temp with a "laser probe" if you can find one     ...

Thanks for those efforts on your sim - Schubert.  Much appreciated.  Let me know if you can change the MOSFET config - or simply use the one with a continually applied negative signal.  I'd be most interested in the result.

Thank you, but let me clarify this:


1) So I continue to pulse Q1 normally.
2) The negative voltage is applied to Q2: it's the negative voltage of the FG or the battery ?
3) The input signal is an AC type or a pulsed DC.
4) I have tested my sim with a AC type because with the pulsed DC it return me a bug (Q2 is the cause of the bug of course).


SRM.