another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[hartiberlin]

Then.  Regarding the function generator.  I have designed a test that will first be run to prove whether or not the function generator is responsible
for this extra energy - as you claim.  Where would we be if we did not allow experimental evidence to guide us?  I would have thought?

Regarding TK's videos - they only prove that the function generator CAN supply energy - ....

You always will get energy into the circuit via the STRAY Capacitance of the
gate to source and gate to drain STRAY capacitances.

It might just work out for a few Watts only, depends on this oscillation frequency, but this will recharge a bit your batteries and
thus it is very important to do the battery status test before and after the experiment and not to use anymore the function
generator at all.

Regards, Stefan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You always will get energy into the circuit via the STRAY Capacitance of the
gate to source and gate to drain STRAY capacitances.

It might just work out for a few Watts only, depends on this oscillation frequency, but this will recharge a bit your batteries and
thus it is very important to do the battery status test before and after the experiment and not to use anymore the function
generator at all.

Regards, Stefan.

Harti, here's the extent of our claim. I confidently predict that there will be almost NO discharge of energy from the experimental test when the control will be flat.  I think it would be unreasonable to propose that this amount of energy is supplied from capacitance related to the transistors.  Or indeed to anything.  But it is, in any event, immaterial.  I will simply position a non inductive shunt resistor at the output of the function generator to show the energy that is either being put out by that generator or being returned to it. 

I'll try this again.  We CANNOT GET THE REQUIRED CONTROL OVER THE SWITCH with a 555.  Therefore we can't do the higher wattage test.  And I'm NOT about to engage in a test that's restricted or limited to 5 watts or less.  It's neither significant at these levels - nor conclusive.

Regards
Rosemary

[poynt99]

I would propose if we must stay with the FG, that two LEDs be installed in series (in reverse polarity of each other similar to how I showed them in the battery line) with it so that IF there is any appreciable power at all going through the FG, it will be indicated by which LED is lit, if any.

I'd prefer this over another scope channel with a CSR.

[hartiberlin]

I would prefer to have the Function generator out of the circuit as we don´t know what kind of ground loop noise
it was generating together with the grounded scopes and other measurement devices...

There could easily humming groundloop currents exist.

If you are a musician, you know what I mean by this, if you ever had humming problems when connecting
many equipments to a mixer or a PA.

Maybe Rose can just use the 9 Volt Battery trick to get  the oscillation started and use the negative threshold voltage
of the 9 Volt battery and a pot for it.

ALso the capacitance of a gate to source or gate to drain electrodes of a MOSFET transistor
can be in the nanoFarads range, so if you use higher frequencies, this "Straycap" can really put some power
into your circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

P,S, I deleted my last post about Glen, which I received from another user.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys.

I am very happy to run those tests subject ONLY to the unequivocal approval of not less than 2 academics - that the protocols are sufficient.  Since this was the result of our previous COP>17 tests then I'm applying the same conditions here.  IF the control batteries deplete to 10 volts each - against the supply batteries that may, correspondingly, not lose more than one half of a single volt each - then that would constitute an 'win' of the experiment over the control - tested not less than twice - as detailed.

BUT.  I am NOT running this experiment for your benefit Harti - nor for anyone's.  I am running the tests to establish unequivocal proof that our unity barriers can be defeated.  The reach is more comprehensive than to satisfy either you or Poynty Point.  It needs must also satisfy our experts.  Else the entire event will fade from recognition.  This is not meant to denigrate the work that is done on these forums.  It is just that by virtue of the eccentricity related to our interests in over unity -  we will ONLY reach this very same audience.  And there is no way that this technology can be progressed without mainstream involvement.  Now.  I may be able to get a couple of experts to 'engage' prior to publication of our paper.  I don't know.  I'll certainly try for it.   But I most certainly WILL get their co-operation once our papers are published.  And we're reasonably certain that this due - in fairly short order.

But.  Between now and then, there's a lot of groundwork that needs doing.  I personally have to find a way to get this onto real time monitoring that it can be seen on the internet - which represents a learning curve for me.  I have to source those batteries and I have to get our scope calibration certified.  I also need to access some more voltmeters to monitor the battery voltages as I gave mine to someone to enable the advancement of this technology.  Little did I know.  In any event.  I also need to establish the parameters for the control and then purchase the appropriate resistor.  And I then need to find the 'team' that are prepared to monitor this that we can give it some kind of supervision on an hour to hour basis.  You must remember that my time is relatively free.  My collaborators all work for a living.  I'm not happy to impose - except possibly on a loose 'shift' basis.  I also, ideally, need to get a data logger in both tests to validate the results.  And again - that's not only a learning curve but I suspect it will all require more than one computer.  Which may represent yet another outlay.  All of which is going to cost me both in time and money.

Now.  The thing is this.  Can you Harti - or Poynty - explain what inducement you offer me when neither of you even have the courtesy of addressing me by name?  Either Rosemary - or Rosie.  My friends and even my staff call me Rosie.  Everyone else calls me Rosemary. Take your pick.  I answer to either.  But I will not be subject to the continuing humiliation of being addressed by neither.  If you, Harti - or you Poynty - wish to INSTRUCT ME in any matter at all - then PROCEED THAT INSTRUCTION WITH THE USE OF MY NAME AND THEN CONCLUDE THAT INSTRUCTION WITH A WORD OF THANKS.  That's a nominal courtesy.  And I deserve NO LESS.  And IF you, like TK and those other trolls here - choose to continue to address me through the 3rd person singular or plural - as if I am not even here - then I take it that I am under NO OBLIGATION to even acknowledge your post. 

That courtesy is REQURED.
Regards,
Rosemary