Poynt. Can I impose on you to READ OUR PAPER.  That way you'll realise that our claim most certainly DOES NOT rely on the fact that MORE CHARGE IS returned to the battery to RECHARGE it.  IF ONLY.  Then we would INDEED be dealing with something that has no relevance whatsoever to standard physics.  We are none of us magicians.  I can't magic energy out of nothing.  What we propose is that the battery supply source becomes a passive component - which adds to the sum of the energy that is delivered by the circuit components during each phase of that oscillation.  Effectively it is providing the continued potential difference that is required to sustain that oscillation.  BUT.  The battery supply source merely RETAINS its potential difference.  I have not seen evidence of a recharge.  Nor have I seen evidence of a discharge.

The fact is that you and your 'friends' have been advising the ENTIRE WORLD that I have some fanciful proposal based on 'Zipnots' as it's described, that perform feats of magic - HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR THESIS OR OUR TESTS.  What it DOES have is the rather shameful proof of how little you understand or understood our proposals.  However.  Let me ASSURE you that you are entirely WRONG in those assumptions.  WE RELY ON THE STANDARD MODEL OF PHYSICS.  ELSE - with good reason - you and your 'friends' would be well justified in applying all that scorn.  Now.  I can live with that abuse.  It has no material relevance to our thesis or to our tests.  But what I can't live with is the arrogant assumption that you can not only detract interest from our own technology - but that you all go to such absurd lengths to discount ALL evidence - on the rather reckless and mistaken presumption of authority.  That assumption.  That you are - all of you some kind of representative authority - that ALSO KNOWS BEST.  Patently - your skills and the skills of your 'friends' are somewhat lacking.  And yours and their knowledge is also patently in need of some elementary familiarity with some essentially fundamental concepts related to basic physics.

Now.  I have always assumed - notwithstanding the these concerted and rather bigoted attacks on me and on this technology of ours - that we are, nonetheless - reaching a wider and more impartial audience.  It seems that I'm right.  And that's my mission.  My mission is, to the extent that I am able - to share some rather intriguing insights related to the nature of energy itself.  And I'm not ALONE in that.  I share it with my collaborators.  I share it with many people who I correspond with.  I even share it with some rather weighty academics.  Very few academics I might add.  But that there are any - I see as a kind of triumph.

You see this Poynty.  There are those theoreticians who would drown in circuit analysis.  There are those ace electronic experts who would drown in physics theory.  There are those chemists who would drown in both fields.  And there are those in both fields who would drown in chemistry.  One is NOT automatically STUPID because one is not familiar with any one or other of these branches of one single field of science.  And, for some reason - you have been at some considerable pains to capitalise on my acknowledged ignorance of electronics to JUSTIFY all that abuse.  Fag the detriment to my own name.  Just look at what you manage when you destroy a dynamic new field of investigation.  The more so as that topic is opened for general discussion - under what one assumes is the rather hygienic and well aired platform of 'OPEN SOURCE'.  One doesn't get a foot in.  Because there's a parade of opinions from highly opinionated members who seem to need this daily dose of abuse - to feed their rather over inflated pride and their over inflated egos.  It does science no good.  And frankly, the sooner this abuse is addressed and challenged, and the sooner it disappears from these forums - the better.  Because OPEN SOURCE is actually - the only way to go with ANY NEW TECHNOLOGIES related to these energy breakthroughs.  Else we'll forever be grid bound.  Or we'll be at the mercy of monopolists.  And that is very far from promoting 'the greatest good for the greatest number.  On the contrary.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 
 ADDED
Rosemary

Then perhaps you can explain what it means exactly when YOU MEASURE and boast about a significant NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER?

I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit.  What on EARTH are you on about?
Regards
Rosemary

Indeed? What is the "computed negative wattage" above?

This is now getting absurd.  HAVE YOU EVEN READ OUR PAPER?  That explains the measurements.  We measure that the amount of energy delivered by the battery - related to the amount of energy returned to that battery together with the evidence of some SIGNIFICANT heat measured over the resistor - indicates that there is more energy returned from the circuit and circuit components than was first delivered by the battery supply source.  This with the caveat that we are applying STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS - which may not be appropriate.  So.  The question in that paper is this.  ARE WE DEALING WITH A STANDARD ENERGY SUPPLY?  The paper is open ended.  It draws no CONCLUSIONS save those that are MEASURED according to the measurements that are REQUIRED by standard physics.

I'm not sure what you're missing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit.  What on EARTH are you on about?
Regards
Rosemary

Really?

That more energy is returned to the battery than was first delivered by the battery.  This is evident in the computation of wattage based on vi dt - the product of which results in a negative wattage.

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HUGE SURPLUS OF ENERGY DELIVERED BACK TO THE BATTERY.

From your paper:

This results in an oscillation that is
robust and generates strong current flows that reverse direction, first flowing from and then back to the source and thereby alternately discharging and recharging the battery supply.

What may now be required is arevision of classical power analysis as the computation of
wattage returned to that supply results in a negative value,
which has little, in any, relevance within classical paradigms.

A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the
source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flowboth to and from the battery supply source.

This allows a current flow generated
by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to rechargeit.

Because the sum of the energy returned to the battery isgreater than the energy delivered, these test results appear to
contradict the requirement of a co-efficient of performance
(COP) equal to 1.

Infinite COP is defined as the
condition where more energy is measured to have been
returned to the energy supply source than was first delivered.

What we measure is that the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is less than the amount of energy that is stored and then delivered BACK TO THE BATTERY.

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE

And then this contradiction:

We do NOT recharge the battery.  What we manage is to NOT DISCHARGE IT.

 

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

Therefore the battery is NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ANY CURRENT FLOW.

How then could energy EVER be delivered to the circuit?

The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain.

That's precious. If the scope probes are on the Drain and Source rails, then they most definitely are not DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.

Again, sounds like your probes are on the proto board, not over at the battery terminals.

Effectively what has happened - possibly as a first in the history of electronics - we have engineered a circuit that is not POWERED by the potential difference at the supply - BUT by the circuit components

That one is priceless. Why do you use any battery at all then? 

I wouldn't trouble yourself Rosemary. The fact that you contradict yourself left, right and centre lends little credence to your responses....it's like closing the barn door after the horses have left. But if you'd rather dig that hole you're in even deeper, go right ahead.

In the meanwhile, I'm working on something you'll really enjoy! 

I can see where Poynt99 is going with this one Rosemary...
If you disconnect the battery negative (source) and the circuit doesn't keep running, then it isn't powering itself (obviously). If you hook the positive (ground side) of the circuit to a different (unconnected) battery (or the 'floating' side of your circuit as Poynt99 suggested) and it won't keep running, that is because it isn't self powering (again). The potential (difference) in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery. (My humble opinion at least as far as my admittedly limited electrical background goes...)
Now, that being said Rosemary... If you can CONTINUOUSLY generate a bunch of heat and NOT discharge your batteries AT ALL (or recharging themselves somehow as your circuit functions), then you have indeed found something AWESOME!!! Heat means work potential! Woot!
Er... So what gives?!?
BTW, you two crack me up!!

PC

Dear Poynty Point,

I've been struggling to answer that list of misquoted quotes in your last post.  In fact I've been at this for most of the day - between cat naps, cooking and a bit of shopping.  Here's the concern.  If I didn't know better, and if it wasn't that people tend to allow their 'signature' writing styles.... to intrude  no matter what - I'd almost be inclined to think that there's a Professor Steven E Jones, lurking in the background of this last post of yours.      Golly.

This is because that slew of nonsense shows an uncharacteristic 'flair' for ABSOLUTE misrepresentation that you, Poynty Point - lack.  And this is mostly managed through the artifice of 'snips and 'snaps and what have you's.  If you are - indeed - there, JouleSeeker, Steve, Professor, PhysicsProf, whatever your preferred title, then PLEASE.  ENGAGE.    I'd be delighted if you would read through these last 400 posts - or thereby.  It may familiarise you with Poynty's argument.  If such it is.  And I'm rather relieved  to think that you're there at all.  God knows, Poynty needs all the help he can get.  And don't be daunted by the sheer weight of number of those posts.  You'll see that the most of them are actually just repeats of the same question.  Poynty has a 'thing' about asking the same thing over and over - in the hopes of testing whether or not he can do this into infinity.  It's his own rather esoteric dialogue with the more challenging aspects related to boundaries.  Are they infinite?  Or are they finite?  Where does repetition end?  And where does good sense begin?  And so it goes.  And then, INDEED.  I'm challenged to answer each and every one of those questions knowing full well that my answers will be ignored.  Not that I mind.  I'm happy to allow him any kind of 'handicap' that he chooses. It's just that I also think that we would all rather like to conclude this thread.  So.  If you're there - then when I address Poynty - it is inter alia - also addressed to you.  And correspondingly - if I lapse and address you - then indeed it is inter alia - also addressed to Poynty Point.  Take you pick. 

And as a kick off, I wonder if I could impose on you both to ONLY reference our current paper.  It seems that you're indulging in a rather liberal access to previous papers and current papers, and quotes out of context and quotes with NO 'snips?    One is rather inclined to think that the substance of the allegation -  matters not.  Just the telling of it does.  That's certainly following in the rich traditions established on these forums.  But it does very little to get to the substance of the argument.  You see this?  It relies on those techniques of propaganda which we've mentioned before.

I must say I was going to reference each and every 'snip.  But then I realised that I'd be falling into the trap of taking the trouble to deny.  And denial is always a rather weak argument.

Kindest regards to the one or the other of you - or indeed - to both.
Rosie

No answer to that question then I suppose?

No.  Not one that I can rustle up.  I'd hate to be accused of speculating.  Actually I could take a flier at this.   If that oscillation persisted then the chances are that it will increase the voltage potential over the battery that's being supplied current - in line with that drain rail.  And it will, correspondingly DECREASE the other.  But I have no clue.  It's not about our circuit.

Regards
Rosemary