Hello guys,

I posted this directly onto Professor's own thread - in the hopes that he'll read this.  Still no answer.  Strange.

My dear Professor,

You were rather public about the display of some very sweet coins you offered as a prize for experimental proof of over unity.  We have now attempted to alert you to our claim for this and, for some reason, you're not READING our challenge.

I am a little concerned that the problem may be with your eyesight.  I know something about this.  I too, am as blind as a bat.  I'm hoping that if I repeatedly call your attention to this claim of ours that - eventually - it'll come into focus.  At it's least there's an outside chance that we'll then reduce the statistical probability of being ignored FOREVER.  And one also HOPES that the fault is, indeed, an oversight.  Indeed.  It would be preferable to the rather sad conclusion that there may be an 'agenda' here - designed to IGNORE our claim - lest it prove successful.  God forbid.

We all know you as a highly professional expert in the art of scientific measurement.  You did such an extraordinary job on your dissertation related to that 9/11 catastrophe.  We also know how actively you advance proof of over unity.  I also know that poor Lawrence Tseung has been trying to alert you to his own claim for this based on the tests that I believe you've completed.  On the whole I think that Lawrence's claim actually proceeds our own.  I would be happy to 'step aside' provided only that you give us some indication that your analysis of those tests were actually based on some applied measurement protocols that conform to the standard requirements.

Do let us know.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Guys, just as a quick synopsis of things.

There have been those personalities - such as Poynty Point who have gone to some considerable trouble to deny claims of over unity.  I can't possibly cover them all.  And nor can I talk with any authority about any of them other than our own claim.  Our own experience is that they first established  the credentials of the claimant.  When they're satisfied that this is lacking - then they deny the intelligence of the claimant.  When they've manged this then they attack the sanity of the claimant.  And so it goes.  In our case - it was rather more urgent - as they also had to attack the technology as we had measured proof.  And lots of it.  In which case it was REQUIRED that I be considerably more stupid and less competent and more lunatic - than average.  But any idiosyncratic aptitudes or failings - of any of those claimants - have NOTHING to do with the issue.

You will notice how Poynty Point seldom addresses me directly, and when he does - it is with a kind of offensive imperiousness.  That's designed to encourage all members and readers to share that disrespect.  Which is why - for instance - that curious Chris felt free to parade his ill mannered, injudicious rejections of our claim with such little preparation and even less justification.  Why Cloxxki feels free to publicly claim that not only am I a FRAUD but a LAZY FRAUD.  What the professional 'nay sayers' - those leading the attack -  depend on is that the sheer weight of their opinion - appropriate or otherwise - will CRUSH the claimant and with it claim.  And therefore, the ONLY thing that they will not communicate - is any residual evidence of any kind of respect at all.  Which is extraordinary.  All that is ever attempted by any claimant - any experimentalist - any  researcher - is that the issue under consideration - the science related to the claim - is also CONSIDERED and DISCUSSED. And THAT - most certainly - does NOT warrant the parade of slanderous and abusive criticism that follows in its wake.

My intention in claiming those prizes is simply based on our evidence that INDEED - we have a valid claim.  Over Unity is alive and well.  And denial of his is now positively obsolete.  At it's least we have scheduled some anomalies that are not consistent with conventional prediction.  That I have not claimed these prizes before is because, frankly, I'm not really that interested in actually getting hold of them.  Nor are any of our collaborators.  What we decided was to use our rights to claim this as an excuse to EXPOSE the fact that not only have those unity barriers been defeated - but THAT their denial of the fact is in line with their AGENDA and NOT with the evidence.  Poynty's own SIMULATIONS PROVE OUR CLAIM.  He therefore needs must re-invent the entire basis of electrical energy measurement - in order to deny this.  And by forcing him to do any public evaluation at all - EXPOSES these rather absurd mathematical inventions.  He is, most assuredly, depending on the combined ignorance of the members in standard measurement protocols.  Else there would be a howl of protests at the absurdities he's expecting you all to endorse. 

And my need to remind you that our claim is valid is precisely because there are many of you who are not aware of this fact.  There is an assumption that the unity barrier is still up and functioning.  It's not.  It's dead and buried.  I very much doubt that ours was the first evidence.  It certainly wont be the last.  But more to the point - our own technology - albeit having some nascent potentials at delivering higher energy - is already virtually archaic at its inception.  With Rossi's breakthroughs - I KNOW that there will be many, many more.  And it does not help to say that Rossi's invention is not OU - it's argued as LENR.  LENR is, itself, not fully understood.  Or fully explained.  We're at the beginning.  The door is hardly opened.  And that's all a very good thing.  But this progress is never going to 'take off' until those breaches are considered.  Very, very carefully. Nothing to do with the claimant.  Everything to do with the claim. Otherwise the perfectly excellent objectives of these forums - will be heavily compromised.  And they'll simply fade into the background noise - in the face of the real developmental thrust that will be OFF forum.  Which would be sad.  Open source is something to be protected.  And it has a potential dynamic to lead in this new science - rather than simply fade from view. 

Which may or may not explain this detour in our own thread objectives.  And hopefully - for once - I'll be able to expose that 'agenda' - be it financed or otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Schubert ,
Because your post is rather long - I've taken the liberty of splitting the answers into 3 parts.  Otherwise the post becomes too confusing.

In any event, it's really difficult to understand your writing.  Here's my best shot.

I have started to read the first page of ROSSI JAP 1:
Two things shock me 
What's is a negative signal ? Your MOSFET are P or N type, (Yeah that damned MOSFET question again)... ?

The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.

Inductor STORE energy and does not "create" energy...

IF the inductor STORES ENERGY then we would NOT get more energy returned to the battery than was supplied BY the battery. 

Not sure if you're talking 'generally' here because the tests related to this are NOT on the first page ... In any event I'm assuming your reference is to our first test as it's also referenced in both our first and second paper.

1) The MOSFET is ON: current flow and dissipate in R (the inductance heater).
2) The MOSFET is OFF current flow back into  battery and dissipate a second time...
3) But problem the energy returning into the battery will  be less before charging the inductance...
4) So I'm highly worried here  And the fact is battery absorb very badly CEMF impulse. What   
    about the efficiency of this method !?
5) For OU operation the inductance must be return more energy than he have stored previously !!!
6) It's very very difficult to measure the energy contained in a spike if not nearly "impossible"...

1)First test and test in Paper 2 has NO FLOW OF CURRENT during the closed or 'ON' condition of the MOSFET.
2)The oscillation ramps UP during the period that the battery is DISCONNECTED.
3)There is considerably more energy being returned during that oscillating cycle than was EVER delivered by the battery.
4)What absorption?  The battery hasn't delivered any energy.
5)Indeed.  There is measurably more energy returned than was EVER delivered.
6)What spike?  We HAVE NO SPIKE. We have an oscillation that is well within the oscilloscope bandwidth to both record and measure

1st part

3rd part
 

11) Crucial question do you use resonance amplification to operate this ?

Not that I know of.
 

12) You speak about Ltseung: look like he use the same system Q amplification, if he use resonance and Q amplification his FLEET is nothing more than modified Transverter/MRA tech...

I have NO IDEA what system Lawrence uses.  I have NEVER been able to understand his circuit.  But I'm reasonably satisfied that he is using that 'spike' that you referenced in your opening gambit.

13) Stanley Meyer and Joule Thief tech are very look like to high Q resonant amplifier the C (and R also) is the water cell in the WFC and C (and R also) is the CFL in the Joule Thief/Ringer...

I'm not qualified to comment.
 

15) If this theory is CORRECT it can explain nearly all the Overunity phenomena and devices that use Coils/Caps and pulsed or AC signal...

WHAT THEORY?  We have ONLY proposed the modest thesis that current flow may have a basic material construction of magnetic dipoles which then introduce a 'charge' to the justification or flow of that material.  the THEORY has already been proved.  Again.  By our astrophysicists.  Ellis et al.

16) For eventual "Debunker": This a theory not a fact, and like every theory in te world she's can be TRUE, FALSE, or even partially TRUE...

It is NOT a THEORY.  The results are experimentally EVIDENT.  Therefore the scientific evidence is that the thesis in support of the theory - MAY INDEED BE CORRECT.  To deny this one would need to disprove the evidence.  Not the theory.  It's already there.  Enshrined in all the proof required.  Those dark energy theorists are NOT SPECULATING.

And best regards to you too Schubert.
Rosemary

Thank you about precision, so it's nothing to do with resonance theory (Hector Perez) who is he is not using Dark energy but rather Ambient Thermal (waste heat), Gravity and Time distortion effect to "fuel" the LCR resonant circuit... (To comply with conservation of energy...)

So it's more like dark energy conversion !!!

Thank you, SRM.

Indeed.  What we're hoping to alert all you clever scientists to is the possibility that all this energy is EVERYWHERE in magnetic fields.  And the minute one proposes that these fields are particulate - and more to the point - bipolar - then one has an ENTIRE resolution of MANY, MANY unresolved questions.  And nor does one then need to REINVENT physics.

Kindest again.  And thank Schubert - for taking the trouble not only to read all this - but to argue it.
Take good care,

Rosemary

edited. Changed 'to' to 'one'

Rosemary Quote:
"The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED."

OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...
So in theory the "excess"  energy dissipated will come from oscillation...


Note that you can have capacitance coupling with your MOSFET !!!


But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!! It depend how you measure the signal in rapport with the 0V...


Floating point, and floating measurement can give induce the experimenter in error sometimes, especially in electronic circuit !!!


So I will still skeptic for now, but continue to study.


Best Regards SRM.

My dear Poynty Point,

Yet again you are managing to MISDIRECT everyone with your own confusions, which you keep insisting are OUR's.  Not only that - but you are STATING as a FACT something that is SIMPLY WRONG.  And not only that but you are AGAIN talking to the gallery instead of - with some small modicum of courtesy - addressing me directly.  You really need to learn the art of manners.  One would have thought that someone with your exposure to your profession - would do rather better.  In any event.  Far be it from me to moralise.  It seems that I'm simply required to deal with your atrocious lack of manners and as best I can.

OK, so your answer (buried in this statement) to my question is POSITIVE, correct?  (loud buzzing sound!) Incorrect!

What exactly do you mean by a loud 'buzzing sound'?  Is this from the rush of blood pressure that's induced from your own anxieties?  Certainly it's not something that I hear.  And I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT STATE THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS POSITIVE.  I've taken the trouble to detail my answer - because your question was both excessively ambiguous and entirely UNQUALIFIED.

Rosemary seems to ignore that fact that she has MOSFETs connected such that one is configured with V_GS in the forward direction, and one in the reverse direction.

LOOK AGAIN.  It is absolutely NOT in reverse. 

She is also ignorant of the fact that "Q1" is absolutely NEVER ON, and that "Q2" in fact IS ON during the oscillation.

Again - my ignorance is not the issue.  You really need to stop depending on repetition to endorse your opinions.  You need to qualify them.  And indeed you're off the mark Poynty.  If Q2 is ON when Q1 is OFF then it is getting it's positive signal via the SOURCE.  That would be a non-standard application at BEST.  Are you even aware of the circuit?  I though you knew it.  After all you simulated our resuts.  PERFECTLY

Furthermore, Rosemary is completely unaware that the -5V she believes she is applying to "Q2" is a V_GS of -5V, when in actuality, it is a V_GS of +5V. This positive VGS bias is indeed part of what allows the "Q2" MOSFET to oscillate.

WHAT -5 or even +5 volts are you referring to.  We have NEVER APPLIED that much voltage anywhere at all.  At the most there's 2 volts applied.

I posted this several months ago, but Rosemary rejected it then, and she will reject it now again, even though it is the absolute truth.

The TRUTH?  As opposed to what?  Your lies?  My lies?  That implies a deliberate attempt at DUPING.  I trust I am NOT guilty of DUPING ANYONE AT ALL.

Perhaps it's evident now why I have been trying to get an answer from Rosemary to my question; the answer of course being "POSITIVE".

CONCENTRATE POYNTY.  The probe from the signal generator is applied DIRECTLY to the gate of Q1.  The GROUND of the probe from the signal generator is applied directly to the SOURCE.  THEREFORE - when the signal from the probe reverses to apply a negative at Q1 - then at that moment the POSITIVE signal would be applied directly to the source - which is NOT THE GATE OF Q2.

You are attempting to persuade all and sundry that there is an applied positive signal at the GATE of Q2 because the MOSFETS are REVERSED.  They are not.  That would call for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO THE ONE THAT WE'VE DISCLOSED AND INDEED THAT WE USE.

Therefore - far from being a 'cobbled-together circuit as you are proposing - it is you who are trying to impose some kind of configuration in that schematic that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT.

Rosemary, you have absolutely no idea how even your own cobbled-together circuit operates.  It's really quite sad how you go on and on with your nonsense as if you do, and as if you've discovered something novel....sorry you haven't.

Quite apart from which - you have made this into yet another 'pissing contest' as you guys refer to it.  We would all be better served if you simply spoke science and that would - most naturally - elicit a more mannerly approach.  And then - Poynty Point.  Explain, if you can, how it is that the THE APPLIED NEGATIVE AT THE GATE OF Q1 generates a positive at Q2 given that those FETS ARE NOT REVERSED AS YOU'RE PROPOSING?  Because they assuredly ARE NOT.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

.99