Guys - the sad truth is that when it gets down to that final question - how can the positive current flow find a path through either Q1 and/or Q2 during the oscillation phase - then we've actually got the the nub of the what's going on here.  No surprise that Poynty's begged off.  He can't answer it.  There's no explanation within standard thinking about the properties of current flow.  When they get to this point then everyone becomes horribly vague and fall into an excessive use of acronyms and muddled nonsense.  Because they have NO SENSIBLE ANSWERS.

I'd love to hear an explanation that fits mainstream concepts.  How about it Poynty Point.

Rosie

and as an aside, there was no OU claim... it was a COP>1 claim if i recall.

This one was worth responding to, the claim was COP 17 and COP Infinity amongst others made.

Only Stefan can tell me what to do on this forum, wow you remind me so much of Omnibus.

In this link Wilby you will recognise members from this forum they all failed to match that OU claim
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3

If you go through the pages on that link you will see the members from this forum, maybe you could explain to them what they did wrong,  but I guess you won't  that's a real shame,  it would really help if someone from this forum could have success with this circuit.

Now if you are not going to help then why bother posting support for Rosie's claims, you're the one with all the knowledge or so you insinuate.

pussycat

yeah that's what i said... cop>1... if you could read and comprehend.
furthermore, i didn't "tell you what to do"... i made a couple requests of you, i even used the word please.

the rest of your post isn't even worth responding to, you are simply repeating the irrelevant garbage from your first fallacious reply to my post.

You really only see what you want to see,  here is an example

if you have any more questions for me pussycat, please send me a pm instead of polluting threads with your irrelevancies... and next time you respond to one of my posts, please try to address the points i made with a cogent argument (if you know what one is...) instead of responding with irrelevant logical fallacies. thanks!

Things I remember about you arguing with other people is misdirection,  so it's pointless me arguing with you, 
you might well understand what I am telling you but you would rather have an argument about the way I said it.

basically you're not going to help anyone makes this circuit work,  though you are going to stand by Rosie's claim

That is really useful to humanity, at a time when we need practical solutions,  and you're supposed to be intelligent,
your scientific knowledge is far greater than mine and yet you choose to do nothing to help prove that this claim is true

Standard thinking is this.  At first, no current can flow from the battery.  There's no path.  On one side of the MOSFET there's a blocking diode.  And the gate is open.  At Q2 there's also a blocking diode and because, as yet no signal's been applied to either FET then its gate is also OPEN.  For perfect clarity - let me add this.  Both MOSFETs' body diodes are positioned that their anodes are parallel to the battery supply's anodes.   Therefore it blocks a positive or clockwise current flow from the source battery.

THEN.  There is a signal applied by the signal generator to the Gate of Q1.  Its widely referenced as a POSITIVE signal which is possibly erroneous.  But I'll get back to this.  For now - and for this description - it most certainly IS  positive with respect to ((wrt) ) the current that is now ABLE to flow from the anode of the battery to the cathode of the battery - from the plus terminal to the negative terminal.  That's the standard - predictable - respectable - result - precisely in line with what a well behaved circuit should do.  All's good.  The previously OPEN circuit is now CLOSED.  The gate has been bridged.  The current can flow.

THEN. That applied signal REVERSES.  It goes FROM POSITIVE  to NEGATIVE.  Again, I'm not sure that that's an accurate description of the property of that applied signal.  But again, this much is still unarguable.  Because.  With respect to - or as our rather pretentious contributors prefer - wrt - the applied current from the source there's a clash of interests.  The positive voltage from the battery CLASHES with the negative charge applied to the gate of Q1.  THEY REPEL - precisely as like charges repel.  So now, to all intents and purposes the battery supply is AGAIN facing OPEN CIRCUIT CONDITIONS.

NOW. Let's take a look at the new circuit.  The battery cannot apply any energy at all.  It's effectively DISCONNECTED.  BUT.  The circuit is now CHARGED with POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE THAT IS EQUAL TO THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE FIRST APPLIED FROM THE POWER SUPPLY.  So.  What we've actually got is A SECOND ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCE because we all know that potential difference is MOST CERTAINLY a source of energy.  And where we only had one energy supply source - in the battery - we've now got a second energy supply source in the circuit material.

THEN.  Unlike the battery - there's a circuit path for the flow of current induced from all that negative energy.  Here's that path.  The body diodes in either Q1 OR Q2 or both - allows the flow of current from it's cathode through it's anode - back to the anode of the battery.  The battery cannot offer any resistance to this because it's still effectively disconnected.  Again.  The battery source still cannot, itself, discharge any current as there's still no path available to it.  So it simply takes this new and reversed inrush of current from it's anode through its cathode and that current flow then returns back to it's own source - being the circuit material that also discharged all that negative potential difference.  And the result of this is that the battery voltage CLIMBS.  It climbs to the full value of the current applied during this cycle times the voltage that was applied during that second cycle,

NOW.  Here's the thing.  This is the point where POYNTY et al need to learn new techniques of denial.  Because, as Poynty as rightly pointed out - the battery voltage is determined by its ratings.  It cannot, of itself CLIMB to some value well in excess of that rating.  Any apparent climb must therefore be the result of potential difference applied OUTSIDE the battery.  Since it's climbed to a 'readable' value of, say double the battery supply - then one can rightly compute that the applied voltage is the sum of the battery's rated voltage PLUS the increased voltage.  And the rate of current flow is easily established by the voltage measured across the shunt over the resistive value of that shunt.  So.  P=vi dt - which is ABSOLUTELY IN LINE WITH GOOD, WELL ESTABLISHED, STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.

And here's the kicker - Guys,

PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTIES OF CURRENT FLOW COMPRISE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE and ONLY if they comprise that dipole - then there are NO RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THAT CIRCUIT FOR THE CHARGE AND DISCHARGE OF NEGATIVE ENERGY IN BOTH INDUCED CYCLES. Therefore, my hope.  That this oscillation PROVES that property - is the first point.

And IF IT DOES - then it also proves that the POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE can vary on a circuit without the MATERIAL LOSS OF ANY OF THOSE MAGNETIC DIPOLES.  WHICH BEGS A TOTAL CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

And IF IT DOES - then it also proves that the circuit material itself is a viable source of INDUCED POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE - to become an energy supply source all on its own.

AND it proves that therefore there are NO CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THIS RESULT AND THE LAWS OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

And it proves that the amount of INDUCED ENERGY can EQUAL AND/OR EXCEED the amount of energy first applied WITHOUT contradicting the KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS.

and it proves that in as much as ALL CYCLES - the initlal applied current and the current resulting from both INDUCED CYCLES is able to dissipate energy at the circuit's workstations without any material reduction to that energy supply - then it is also FEASIBLE to generate work without a commensurate reduction to that potential difference.  And that's easy to prove.  JUST MEASURE THE HEAT AT THAT WORKSTATION.  IF IT'S ABOVE AMBIENT THEN THERE'S ENERGY DISSIPATED.

Which has ALL GOT TO BE - A VERY GOOD THING.
 

Rosemary

Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15. 

I'm glad you have finally figured out how to intersperse comments and quotes. Since you had such a traditional English education, perhaps you could list some of the courses you took. Algebra? Geometry? Chemistry? Trigonometry? Physics? Anything like that at all in your O levels or M levels or GCEs? There certainly were in mine, and I'll wager that there were in the pre-university educations of most of our readers.

I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.

Congratulations on making the right decision there. It's difficult to cut it at University if one doesn't have the maturity, discipline, or.... educational prerequisites required for success.

And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.

On that much we are in complete agreement. NONE of your prior work gives you any qualification to be writing "theories" or doing "experiments".

  And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

No, Rosemary, you are clearly a very clever person. Your problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and you cannot accept that you just might be wrong in your conception of the scientific process in general and the peer review process in particular.

(referring to being an autodidact)
This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters

So you sat in class with Gell-Mann, sat exams for him, worked as a grad student of his, or Dyson's.... I laugh at your "taught DIRECTLY" because you have no conception of what it's really like to be a student of a great teacher.

or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

You defend your ignorance with more vigor than anyone I have ever encountered.

FAR from NOT making a single numerical prediction it RELIES on a close analysis of mass/size ratios and a close analysis of the properties of charge.  It is ALL OF IT NUMERICAL.

Please give an example of a mathematical calculation that comes from your theory. I'm sure we would all like to see it. Perhaps you can explain Maxwell's Equations or even just Faraday's Law in the context of your "theory", Mathematically.

And the most glaring prediction is that in the transfer of electric energy UNITY CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE EXCEEDED.  That you cannot understand it is also understandable.  At it's least you'll need a facility with concept.  And I certainly HOPE that the thesis will not REPLACE QED.  What a thought!  That would be a travesty of the highest order.  It REPLACES NOTHING.  Nor does it DISCOVER ANYTHING.  It simply resolves some very real anomalies - which is the broadly applied euphemism when our mainstream scientists can't answer questions.  lol. 

LOL is right. You do not even understand how absurd that last bit is.

(referring to the "paper")
ALSO NOT TRUE. 

Did you or did you not allow the paper to appear on ScribD with the heading "IEEE" on the top of every page, AFTER you knew the paper had been rejected by all their journals to which it was submitted, giving the impression to the casual reader that it was "an IEEE paper"? Sort of like your "patent"?

The paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK.  And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper.  Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work.  lol.   Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.

Methinks you do protest too much. Glen is a competent and careful researcher; he certainly did a lot more real work than you personally ever did on the project, and he --- like Err-on and some others-- was strongly on your side, until he realized --- like Err-on and Harvey and some others --- how full of ignorance you really are.

For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED. 
And this is also true - provided that you exclude Glen's replications, sundry tests that Aaron has done - The tests designed and accredited by BP (SA), ABB Research, SASOL (SA) SPESCOM - CISR - POWER ENGINEERS (part of the Alstom group)

We've been here before. You can't produce any documentation of any of these "tests" and people have actually contacted some of these companies and asked about you... nobody's heard of you.

the directors of MTN SCIENCENTRE where it was demonstrated for a couple of weeks and a veritable HOST of independent engineers.  And latterly by 3 replicators here in CAPE TOWN. 

Really? So it should be all over the news then. But it's not even being reported on PESWiki... that should tell you something.

But otherwise TK is SPOT ON.  Just read that  'Nobody but nobody' - as a double negative - which we all know - makes a positive.

I thought English was your native language. I guess not. "Nobody but nobody" is not a double negative, it's a hyperbolic emphasis, and still very true. Nobody, but nobody, has shown any free energy, much less COP infinite or even COP>17 from your circuits.

   More of those euphemisms TK.

Euphemism? What? Test my TinselKoil using your protocols and analysis. You'll get massive, truly massive, overunity results. Before you removed your comments from my videos, you were very impressed with my TinselKoil, remember. After all, it uses essentially the same switched mosfets driving a low inductance, low resistance load, the same ideas of resonant oscillation and self-excitation, and can even potentiate vodka into something drinkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gSXi3BkkNA

It's true.  I make a very good marmalade.  I LOVE cooking.
I don't think anyone cares enough about anything you claim TK. We all know you as a propagandist.  And once propaganda is seen for what it is - then it rather loses its edge. 

Rosie

Added a link to what TK refers to as my 'ZIPON' theory.  ENJOY.  lol.

LOL is right. I'm no propagandist; I just hate to see intelligent and creative people wasting their time on non-productive BS when there's so much other, really interesting, stuff out there. And I am personally interested in your case particularly, Rosie, from a psychological aspect.
And I really don't give a hoot about what people think of me, but I will not put up with your lies and distortions. Stop lying, and I'll stop responding.