I think we'd all like to see the credentials of your so-called "experts" Rosemary. Please do indulge us.

Frankly PoyntyPoint - I prefer it that you doubt my presentations.  Because when these things come to light - which they inevitably will - then that will be a sweet victory.  Meanwhile I enjoy seeing your public denials - your own rather sad and inappropriate disbelief aired with such incautious abandon.  It will come back to bite you.

Yet again,
Rosemary

Frankly PoyntyPoint - I prefer it that you doubt my presentations.  Because when these things come to light - which they inevitably will - then that will be a sweet victory.

Indeed it will.

Agreed, you're not doing well in this discussion, best throw in the towel before it gets worse.

Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I can and will replicate and demonstrate your measurement. And just because I can, this does NOT "represent an overunity result". Once I proceed to demonstrate the CORRECT measurement, it will confirm that YOUR measurement is erroneous.

Hello Derrick,

... but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.

Yes.  I see your point.  If I don't convince either of you that we have a claim for Poynty's prize money - then, we really should, as you propose 'throw in the towel'.  Cease and desist.  Own up to defeat.  It makes very good sense.  Especially as there seems to be no point in relying on mere experimental evidence to prove well argued measurements and results.  Science should, in terms of your proposal here - be determined by your opinion and Poynty's opinion.  I'll consider that proposal very carefully.  Certainly - on the face of it - you both appear to constitute a representative majority.  And as the claim is essentially frivolous - with no possible value to society in general - then - no doubt - I'm rather imposing on your good time. 
 

I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge. (Would love to see the video!)

If you could be satisfied by the evidence of a video on this then you'd be unique amongst our forum members.  When, in the history of these forums, has any video satisfied anyone at all - of experimental evidence of over unity?  If you could advance just 1 example where this has satisfied the criteria for a claim - then I will gladly release a half hour run - which would be time enough to include all 4 examples that are included in our paper.   

Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so.

WHAT?  If you're trying to make me believe this then I'd need to ignore those multiple proposals where I continue to test irrelevant criteria into perpetuity.  I assure you that EVERY RELEVANT proposal of a test variation - has ALSO been tested.

They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.

You're generalising Derrick.  Rather broadly I might add.  And those 'errors' that you reference are based on WHAT?  Poynty's unique proposal to simply invert our probes?   He's right.  That would iNDEED - upend our argument.  That would 'cut it'.  So would his extraordinary corruptions of the standard measurement protocols that he applied rather recklessly to that 'paper' of his - as he refers to it.

Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?

BS?  Derrick?  That's strong language.  And what 'strange scope oscillation?  Do you even know what you're talking about?  Dear God.  If this is the level of counter argument then I'm wasting my time.  What you're proposing would require pure magic.  I keep saying this.  We are NOT magicians.  No-one in the history of science - has ever been able to separate a current from its source and managed to keep it flowing into perpetuity.  It would require properties in matter - that no scientist would ever seriously propose.  Not even if that current flow comprised electrons. 

I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist.

I see this now.   To propose a thesis that conforms to the standard model - yet extends it - is 'yammering' - IF it is also accompanied by the FOLLY of experimental evidence as PROOF of that thesis.  To use mere experimental proof to determine a thesis would most certainly therefore CORRUPT science.  What was I thinking? 

Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).

I do not have an interpretation.  Established scientific measurement protocols establish that interpretation for me.

And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary,...

Not sure if you're asking that I forgive only some of your bluntness - or or that I must only partially forgive you.  Either way.  There's nothing to forgive.  Your input has been invaluable. On many levels.  But probably not as you intended.

but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?

They're here in South Africa.

I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.

This is extraordinary.  What don't you buy?  That there are any?  Are you seriously proposing that I've 'invented' them?

Let me explain why they don't engage.  Derrick - there is no greater cesspool - than these forums.  It is corrupted - from inception - when 'anonymous' posters propose that anything they say - could ever be taken seriously.  In general - one is accountable for what one says.   It is the measure of a man.  If he claims something - then he 'stands up to and makes that claim' PUBLIC.  Exactly where do any of those anonymous 'posters' that HOWL their objections in the wake of our claim - WHEN DO THEY EVER OWN UP TO THEIR IDENTITIES?  Therefore they are NOT accountable.  Therefore they can say anything.  The abuse of these forums will be perpetuated while those who subscribe are reluctant to both OWN UP TO WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR.  It is EXTRAORDINARY.  Who cares what an anonymous anybody THINKS?  It's IRRELEVANT.  And it is ENTIRELY irrelevant what any member thinks - until they are prepared to STAND UP and claim it.  They don't.  They're cowards.  When forums are conducted on the basis of complete exposure of those engaging in any discussion - is REQUIRED - then you may see the level of debate and the quality of the discourse IMPROVE BEYOND RECOGNITION. 

My ONLY interest in promoting anything at all on these forums is because I am aware of a silent readership who engage on an ENTIRELY different level.  And it is that for that readership that I write.  Trust me on this. 

Kindest regards as ever
Rosie.

And MileHigh,

Provided only that you conceded that IF THERE ARE NO MISREADINGS and ERROR MEASUREMENTS - then our claim STANDS - then I'm happy.  A simple demonstration of this would then be all that's required.  Then we could all be happy.

You are trying to second guess what CANNOT be second guessed.  It needs hands on exposure and evaluation.  Why the HELL do you think that we're trying to get this to the academic forum?  It's precisely because all that precious evidence will be TRASHED if its survival depended on the 'opinion' of anonymous posters of dubious skills who are happy to DISMISS whatever they like - with or without an agenda and on grounds that have nothing to do with standard measurement protocols.

Science CAN ONLY BE PROGRESSED THROUGH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  That's all that matters.  And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  I'm hoping - soon - to get you a full comment from a technical expert who designs those machines.  Pro temp - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

And thanks for your input.  I mean that most sincerely.  It all helps the cause. 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie   

May I propose that you just take a deep breath and LOOK AGAIN.  Take a look at the level of current enabled during the ON TIME of the duty cycle - when the applied signal at the gate of Q1 is POSITIVE and current flow is - under normal circumstances ENABLED.  For 18 seconds of each 180 seconds or thereby of each of those switching cycles - a positive signal is applied at the Gate of Q1.  During this time, notwithstanding the application of that positive signal, there is no current flow from the battery supply.  Here you need to refer to the Channel 1 (ORANGE TRACE) and look where at the current sits.  IT'S AT ZERO.  Again.  during this period when the applied signal is POSITIVE which would enable the flow of current - THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW FROM THE BATTERY.  Therefore the 'offset' setting is doing what it was meant to do.

Fig5 is a different kettle of fish.  An entirely different test.  Here the offset was adjusted to enable the flow of current during that 'on' period of each duty cycle.  Nothing surprising.  When the signal's applied it is INTENDED to ENABLE a short period of current flow from the battery.  This increases the level of dissipation at the element resistor.  Predictably.

I'll deal with the details in your post after this.
Rosemary

I'll try and download those screenshots.  WHY DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS?  WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT?  This is absolutely NOT the level of engagement that I expected.

... And grammer

"grammer"?