ANSWER THIS ONE POYNT.  Or we'll all assume you DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.  Which means you're UTTERLY ill-qualified to comment on any of the tests.  You're ONLY value is in your replications.  And you can do what you LIKE there - it makes no DIFFERENCE.  THE ONLY POINT AT ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MARKED OSCILLATIONS OF THE BATTERY VOLTAGE.  JUST THAT.  We need NOTHING more than this to substantiate our claim.  You don't see it yet.  But you can hardly blame me for your inabilities.

Here it is again.

added.  And while you're at it.  Let us know the PATH for that positive voltage across the shunt and across the load - that it breaches Q2 OR Q1 + Q2.  You can't even do this.

I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. 

You saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. 

Then you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.

Sorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.

 
Regards,
.99

More hand waving.  Poynty - any analysis that you performed is based on the assumption that energy delivered by the battery is from the battery and any energy returned to the battery is from CEMF.  How is it that the battery can be discharging any energy at all when there's NO PATH for its discharge?  You don't even understand the question.

Rosemary

added.  And DON'T give me that 'it's greater than zero - therefore it must be coming from the battery' - bit.  Because that doesn't cut it.  IF the battery was discharging in the usual way then it would MOST CERTAINLY NOT ramp up and down above and below it's rated capacities.  WHAT is introducing SO MUCH ENERGY that the sum of the voltage across the battery first CLIMBS and then DROPS - HUGELY?

 

We have never used MEAN vi EVER.

You don't say?

Too numerous to post, here is but one example of your use of MEAN(CH1 x CH2), where CH1=VCSR and CH2=the erroneous "VBAT"

.99

Golly - such a clamour.  I'm going to answer you Poynty and hope against hope that you'll actually take the time to digest these next two posts and that you also have the wherewithall to understand them.  But if you don't - it's no matter.  Because I suspect the the most of our readers here will.

Let's start with the Mean average as shown by the MATH TRACE.  How exactly do you propose that we use that - 44.1 VV? when we calculate our volts x current x time?  That number is the product of the battery voltage and the shunt voltage x time.  So? How do you propose that we UNTANGLE that product to find out what belongs to the battery and what belongs to the shunt?  Because UNLESS WE CAN DO THIS we also cannot MAKE ANY USE OF THAT NUMBER to calculate ANYTHING AT ALL.  So?  Poynty Point?  What EXACTLY is your point?  We have NEVER applied that mean average or a cycle mean average math trace VV's - or ANY kind of AVERAGE to any of our circuit analyses.  EVER. What a thought!

What we have done is this.  In the event that the math trace indicates a NEGATIVE product then it means that WHEN the LeCroy software multiplied the voltage of the battery with the voltage of the shunt - over time, then that PRODUCT was NEGATIVE.  Which indicates - CONCLUSIVELY - that OVER TIME the value of either the battery voltage or the shunt was NEGATIVE.  A NEGATIVE product implies a REVERSAL of the direction of current flow.  And the ONLY way to get a negative product would be if there was also MORE NEGATIVE voltage than positive.  Ergo - more energy returned to the battery than discharging the battery.  Now.  As we're only trying to work out whether or not the battery is discharging more energy then is being recharged in each cycle - then, technically, we need go no further.  The proof is in that negative trace. 

However.  There's another way to find proof that more energy is being returned than delivered.We can ALSO take a sum of the voltage across the shunt.  IF this is negative then TOO we can also conclude that more energy is being returned to the battery than delivered by the battery. BUT if we want to determine the actual voltage x amperage x time measure of each cycle then there's ONLY one way.  Take a sample spread and do that spreadsheet analysis.  That's the only way to determine the ACTUAL AMOUNT of all that surplus energy that is available to the circuit.  We've more or less completed our paper.  And NOWHERE DO WE GIVE THAT VALUE.  YET WE CLAIM THAT THERE IS INFINITELY MORE ENERGY BEING RETURNED THAN DELIVERED.  Can you work out why yet Poynty Point?  Here's why.  We're left with a negative WATTAGE value.  And a negative wattage has absolutely NO relevance within classical paradigms.  It's an UTTERLY meaningless number. 

So.  Again.  Here's when we KNOW we've got a NEGATIVE WATTAGE value.  If the cycle mean average across the shunt is negative - and/or if the math trace gives a negative product.  Then we check that this is consistent with our spread sheet analysis.  And if and when it IS - which is invariably the case - then we also know we've got another one of those wattage values that make absolutely NO SENSE within classical paradigms.  It's an ANOMALY. That thing that you keep referencing as a negative value.  Unlike you - we don't make ANY assumptions.  We FIRST need to explain how this is possible.

Then.  What you do - with 'FRIGHTENING' regularity - is to take the mean average of the battery voltage and then multiply by the current over time.  Now what you've actually done is impose an ARTIFICIAL condition on that result.  You've REDUCED the actual value of both the discharge and recharge part of each cycle and then you've PRESUMED to give that product any kind of representational value at all.  It has NONE.  You've mixed up your 'in time' and average time with a kind of gay abandon because you ARGUED that the battery voltage is neither climbing nor falling. "How can it?" you ask.  And indeed.  We're also asking the same thing.  Because - you see - this is the whole point - Poynty point.  It most certainly does climb and fall - exactly as your own simulated waveforms show. If you do a real time analysis of the actual measured voltage x the actual measured current - then REGARDLESS.  No matter.  Whether or not the sum of the voltage across the shunt is positive OR negative - MORE OFTEN THAN NOT the actual MEASURED WATTAGE is STILL NEGATIVE.  And this will also be consistent with the product of voltage shown in that MATH TRACE.  Go figger. Now I'll give you some time to digest this and then I'll get to the fallacies associated with your own  calculations.

Regards,
Rosemary

My dear Cat.  I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work.  What happened?  Why are you back?  I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.

Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration.  We DO.  He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device.  We ARE.  He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look.  We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket.  Stefan declined our offer.  BUT.  Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device.  For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer.   That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting.  In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.

NOW.  Let's look at your second beef.  The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'.  REALLY?  The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting.  All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals.  And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on.  They see how I have been treated.  They know better. 

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

Now.  Back to your demands.  You want conclusive evidence.  It's already there.  But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death.  I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control.  But again.  I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.

And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE.  What if you're wrong?  What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG?  Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda?  What then?  I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.

Which means what?  It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here.  Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green?  So.  I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate.  And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate.  And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured.  I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief.  So.  I"m not writing for you.  I'm writing for the readers.

Regards,
Rosemary

If I was new to this forum and reading your above post I would think great this person has found the solution to free energy, if you are one of those people befor you get too excited please read all the previous post and all the posts on the other thread, There is a serious doubt that Rosie has measured incorrectly, there for any measurements that she states might well be incorrect.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0

As for trying to convince people that there is a big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
If there was a conspiracy no one would be to view your videos no one would see your blog no one would see posts of people supporting your work, the fact is, nothing is hidden

It would be wonderful if I could believe in your circuit enough to reproduce it,but with every single person on this forum (on this forum) who attempted this did not match your results, as most of them are much more capable than me and they all failed then I have no chance.

I personally think you should stay on this forum posting but you should do something new, and changed the deadlock that after two years nobody can reproduce your results (on this forum)

Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38

As for RomeroUK's members attempting to replicate his work have only been at it for two months
and most of them have not give up, so maybe more time is required. Lol,  Forum has given you over 2 years and still no on here can replicate your claim of excess energy.
Lol, over two years and you think there's a conspiracy 

Mr Mag has made you a very good suggestion that might go a long way to help you. That's right help you. Most people on here like to help you, but you are so stubborn and insist on repeating your claims and argue about measurements over and over again. (please do something new to prove your case)

If the members fail in the next six months or so to replicate RomeroUK's Do you think in one year's time let alone two years time anyone would be interested in making that device, apart from doing it for research or fun. Mr Mag made reasonable request,instead of treating the forum like your blog why not try something different,you might get some support, and somebody might be able to match your claim.

Anyway - to continue about Poynt's measurements - for those who are following this argument.  He claims that IF you eliminate the inductance 'between' the batteries - then the numbers default that there's no 'gain'.  In other words the sum of the voltage across the shunt becomes greater than zero - which indicates a net discharge or loss of energy to the battery.  To do this he has to reduce the battery supply to just one battery.  We concur.  In fact, on our apparatus, we have actually NOT been able to get the circuit to oscillate at ALL with just an applied 12 volts.

So.  Thus far I have no quarrel with his findings.  Except that we can't duplicate the oscillation that he apparently manages - at 12 volts.  So.  From this point on - his circuit is no longer the same as ours.  It's not therefore, a replication.  So.  Whatever he determines - then it has no relevance to our test or our apparatus.

Regards
Rosemary 

In other words the sum of the voltage across the shunt becomes greater than zero - which indicates a net discharge or loss of energy to the battery.  To do this he has to reduce the battery supply to just one battery.  We concur.  In fact, on our apparatus, we have actually NOT been able to get the circuit to oscillate at ALL with just an applied 12 volts.

So.  Thus far I have no quarrel with his findings.  Except that we can't duplicate the oscillation that he apparently manages - at 12 volts.  So.  From this point on - his circuit is no longer the same as ours.  It's not therefore, a replication.  So.  Whatever he determines - then it has no relevance to our test or our apparatus.

Regards
Rosemary

My later simulation results are based on a battery measurement across one of the six batteries, but all six batteries are still in the circuit, powering the circuit. This was all painstakingly explained in the detailed analysis, which clearly you do not understand. Go read it please and kindly stop twisting the facts!

How can you say you are not confused? 

.99

From the detailed analysis 06 document:

Where is this report? Was it hidden in that file that none of us can access?  Golly. I think you'll need to post the whole report here so that we can all read it.  Or are you trying to keep it hidden for some reason?  I don't think you can expect me to comment on something that I don't know about.  And don't give us a link Poynty.  This is open source.  Let's see that report.  Possibly you've already answered that question.  Maybe you've already told us how that positive voltage moves through those transistors. 

Regards,
Rosemary