According to what I see, that post was reply#961 Rose.

Someone else also mentioned that there seems to be a discrepancy in the reply number that is visible. It seems there is an offset of 3 replies.

The only explanation I have is that Stefan may have gone back and deleted a few posts in this thread today.

 

.99

Rose, could you please provide a response to this post? The readers here deserve to know the answers.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283609#msg283609

Thank you.

.99

As a refresher for all, here is another re-draw of the circuit taken from the actual "as-built" connections shown in the demonstration video.

Notice the equivalence to the circuit posted in the demonstration report (minus the altered and now added connections of Q2-5).

.99

   Does anyone have a link to the video that poynt.99 is referring to?
    Thanks Pete

guys I need to post this quickly.  They got into my computer last night.  They've disabled something that I can't reference anything at all.  Not only that but they're able to read these replies of mine. What happens is that I'm simply 'kicked out' of the internet link after a certain interval.

I need to get this compter 'cleaned'.  They've also deleted my posts.  But right now they've also managed to get into my second computer and disable that too. 

I've got a lot to report on but it may take some time.

Just posting this to see if it'll 'take'

Rosemary

Just ignore these posts.  I'm still testing.  OK.  So far so good.  My second compter has been 'snarled' to death.  Now I'm going to see if I can get to a 'reference'.  brb.

Ok everyone.  It seems that this is going nowhere.  Groundloop your positioning of the ground from the functions generator is how we configured it at the demo.  This was simply because we ran out of space at link in series with the shunt.  It already had 2 probes there to accommodate the two oscilloscopes we were using.  But it can be put in either position.  As mentioned it doesn't make a material difference to the results.

I had a long conversation with one of the guys last night.  Apparently we're positioning the transistors as if the second Q2 is being used as a P FET.  But that is NOT to say it can be replaced with a P FET.  It may be possible.  I just don't know.  What I do know is that it's being triggered with a negative current and that the flow is then returning to the battery.

Poynt's schematic shows the Q2 being linked directly to the shared ground.  This is wrong.  Also. the Source and Gate of Q2 needs to be transposed.  The diode at the drain remains the same.  I'll post the revised schematic but PLEASE NOTE.  The diode at the drain does not change.  Only the diode at the gate.  I can't even give you my own 'scribble' here because the second computer is pretty well 'fried' now and that holds my photobucket and sundry software. 

I hope that clarifies things for now. 
Thank you.
Rosemary

Guys - I think what has happened here is a 'black swan' event.  It's one of those things in history where a circuit is configured in an absolutely 'standard' way but it exposes an 'unexpected' result.  I'm here referring to ALL those circuits that exceed unity.  Typically this 'phenomenon' was uncovered by sundry amateurs and enthusiasts who do not get 'brain washed' by Thermodynamic doctrines. 

To date these results have been successfully contended because the 'expertise' of the nay sayers, of necessity, exceeds the expertise of those amateurs amongst us.  But there are three essential differences here.  The first is that we ASBOLUTELY PREDICTED this result - which means that it was REQUIRED in terms of known physics.  And the second is that our 'excesses' have been REALLY CAREFULLY MEASURED.  And the third is that this has now been evaluated by some really respectable engineers.  The only thing still lacking is to get it to the table of those acknowledged experts.

Another thing is this.  When one offers up results then one also expects a certain amount of 'due dilligence' in the evaluation of those results.  But may I refresh eveyone's memory here.  Our own submission was followed by an onslaught first from TK and then from FuzzyTomCat and then from Pickle.  In the background is Harvey and Laurel his wife who - to this day - still PM members who sound even marginally supportive to advise them of whatever it is that they refer to.  Due dilligence is one thing.  Outright calumny and character assassination is another.  Their excesses are legendary and they effectively cost me a year off the internet and nearly a year off the campus experiments.

While it is always them who reference the fact that this knowledge has been on the internet for 10 years - the truth is that it has NOT been known of and not been developed - effectively - for more than one and half years.  In that time I KNOW the word has spread because I also know how many people there are that follow this 'news' so to speak.  So indeed it's working.  The internet is an effective means of 'spreading the news'.  But the attenddant dangers are manifold.  And I realise that this particular 'unfolding' is likely to continue spawning these objections - the most of which have NOTHING to do with the technology but everything to do with my involvement in it.

But I am STILL being tailed by those anxious 'nay sayers'.  Poynty has gone to some trouble to advise his members to 'RELAX' as he has everything in hand.  That was for his public generally - but specifically for Fuzzy and MileHigh.  They were both in a tail spin and rather concerned that Poynty had 'crossed the floor' so to speak.  This follows on his equally 'public' statement that he is looking forward to 'DEBUNKING' this technology.  He's tried this.

Let me 'recap'.  He started first off by simulating that waveform.  Unless he'd made the same 'transposition error' that I first made - then this would NOT BE POSSIBLE.  I can't comment on how long he knew of this before his disclosure.  But clearly - he has no intention of answering this question.  Then he claimed that the placement of the probes across the battery would 'snuff out' the spurious osciallation.  It did not.  Then he claimed that the inductance over circuit components was simply distorting EVERYTHING and, somewhat amusingly, Pickle then suggested we remove ALL inductive components.  Then it was the undersampling fiasco - and then - FINALLY it was the disclosure of that 'transposition'.  And NOW, with rather effective ease he is insisting that his own rendition of the circuit is correct.  It is not.  For the reasons I've listed in the previous post.

But here I need to go on record.  I do not have the required skills to show the circuit as it should be shown.  Indeed this whole problem has only come up because Poynty forced the knowledge of that transposition when, frankly, I would have preferred to keep it quiet until it could be made really public.  We all know that there are lurkers on these threads.  But I know of their danger.  it is a fact that there are those who are already canvassing one particular Government for 'licensing rights'.  I know this because the main player here actually came to SA to discuss this with me.  We were offered a 'role' to play here.  Needless to say we declined.

But with that particular request came another disclosure which is that this technology is already being SERIOUSLY considered at a highly respectable institution in England.  What this gentleman did not know was that transposition.  And that's why I wanted to keep it under wraps.  You see.  Making knowledge available here is a good thing.  But the readership here is SMALL.  And the potential exploitation of this knowledge is VAST.  But it really needs to be made readilly accessible to the public.  And that's through our traditional media sources.  Because otherwise the best will be 'cherry picked' and I'm not sure how much protection it will afford anyone if licensing rights are then imposed.

What I do know is that while our academia are perhaps 'reluctant' to acknowledge this 'black swan' event - once they've done so - then we're all as safe as houses.  Because the knowledge is so quintessentially simple and it's applications that easy - that there will be no WAY that anyone can stop this particular revolution.  And that, quite frankly, is all that I'm living for - right now.  To advance this technology that we can get off grid. 

But.  I'm really sorry to say this.  All our efforts here on these forums - while very valuable - are never going to constitute the entire study.  I see, over and over, how ineffective I am at even giving the right schematic.  I have 'no way' to explain what I see happening other than in terms that are 'non standard'.  And I am challenged on accurate schematics when that is entirely outside my competence.  All I can comment on with any degree of authority - is what comprises current flow - and where it moves through a circuit.  Nor can I impose on our team to do this for me - because they have their own lives to live and their own livings to earn.  Their interests are not on the internet.  We're a small minority guys.  Just the smallest fraction of our global population.  Not enough to make a difference.

My own obsessive interests - notwithstanding - is to advance all this.  It's fragile knowledge and it needs protection.  And if we give any further space to Poynty et al - with their overriding requirement to deny all - then we will progress nothing at all.  I, personally, would prefer it if you all just did your own experiments.  It is better to use copper wire connections and the thicker the better as this develops more predictable results.  Those small breadboards built with thin wires do not enhance repeatability which is required.  I know this because we tried it.  But PLEASE.  Do not ask me about the finer details of schematics.  I am not qualified to comment. 

But this is the point.  You DO NOT NEED TO TRANSPOSE THOSE FETS to get the same INFINITE COP.  The standard 'spike' that we have always shown - is still well able to get to the required result.  That's if you want to prove OU.  If you want to develop an application - which would be WONDERFUL - then explore that transposition.  It's able to tolderate much higher wattages.  I - unfortunately - cannot help you with the schematics.  I'll post the one variant on Poynt's schematic later on today.  But you'll need to work out the attachments yourselves.  I'll just alert you again - to where you need to still make some changes to that design which I've covered already.  But repetition is probably required.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary