another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

You may have missed this?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130

I would appreciate a link.

[poynt99]

Why don't you guys just let her do her work and write about it?  Just let her experiment in peace.  I get it, you do not like her invention.  I am not sure if you just fear it will upset the balance of power in the world, or if you are paid to suppress it, or if you work for the oil companies, or maybe you work for the government, I am not sure.  But please, the invention and schematics are out there, they speak for themselves, and it is just a matter of time before this thing catches on.

eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

eatenbyagrue,

You're entitled to your opinion, but do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? What is wrong with you? THINK man!

It is all out there indeed. Then where is YOUR working demo?

Poynty Point,

Are you now trying to tell eatenbyagrue that our own experimental evidence is pure fabrication?  I'm reasonably certain that no-one on this forum has tried to replicate our circuit.  If they did then you'd be around to scoff them or to advise them to follow your own circuit variants. 

Eatenbyagrue - I assure you that the circuit is very easy to replicate - and you don't need to parallel those transistors at Q2.  1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2 is more than enough.  Nor do you need so many batteries.  It's easily doable with just 1 x 12 volts.  Possibly it can be done on less than 12 volts - as Groundloop showed us.  There's one downside though.  One needs a zut scope to get optimised settings.  But even that is doable with some patient downloads of the voltage data for spreadsheet analysis.  And simpler yet is to simply try this out on a sim program.  We've had loads of samples of this.  They all manage that waveform.  And a sim does not use an oscilloscope - so no-one can say this is the result of energy or distortions from the scope. 

I personally can't help as I have never done a sim.  And we're not doing any more replications until our paper is published.  Or unless Poynty finds us some academics to establish the protocols.  I won't use his advices though as I've got a shrewd idea he's less than impartial.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

@ TK: Maths rocks, I was not very highly skilled for those kind of energy calculation, just knowing that Joules and Watts it's not same things, but I have learned a lot of things (and well understood Rosemary "Mistake" in her maths) with your post Thanks !!! When you look rationally, you have definitively right. I will go to bed less idiot this night. LOL 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You may have missed this?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315130/#msg315130

I would appreciate a link.

Really Poynty Point?  You'd appreciate a link?  For my part I'd appreciate knowing who it is that you're trying to address here?  Which of us readers are you proposing must rally to earn your appreciation.  And while you're at it - I would appreciate an answer too.  It's related to that battery draw down test.  Are you, in principle, prepared to let us 'reserve our rights' to this claim for your prize?  At least until our paper is published?  Otherwise I suggest we make a plan.

LOL
Rosie Pose