Gravock, regarding this post of yours as it relates to a discussion of the electron.

An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves.  We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form.  Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiraling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.

The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.

I can't comment.  Our own contention is that current flow has little - if anything - to do with the flow of electrons.  Rather what we know of as the flow of current is here proposed to be the flow of 'raw' charge.  And that charge is proposed to comprise magnetic particles being transferred as a field through the circuit.  This is not strictly in terms of conventional concepts - but this model has the real merit of defining the magnetic field - in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force.  In line with this and in line with conventional concepts - we assume that radio signals and light - rely exclusively on photons - that irradiate outwards from a source.  Which means that there would be no interference.  But I am not sure that photons are able to generate a field, any more than an electron can generate, propagate, or move as a 'field'.  Nor, indeed, can any of our known stable particles.  And it is the 'field' described by Faraday's Lines of Force - that is best answered by arguing that it may comprise this dipolar tachyon.

Regarding this quote of yours which I'm simply copying over here.

Using the right hand and pointing the thumb in the direction of the moving positive charge or positive current and the fingers in the direction of the magnetic field the resulting force on the charge points outwards from the palm. The force on a negatively charged particle is in the opposite direction. If both the speed and the charge are reversed then the direction of the force remains the same. For that reason a magnetic field measurement (by itself) cannot distinguish whether there is a positive charge moving to the right or a negative charge moving to the left. (Both of these cases produce the same current.) On the other hand, a magnetic field combined with an electric field can distinguish between these, such as the Hall effect.

Until this distinction is made, then I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.
Below is a quote I made earlier in this thread.  This issue must be settled before we know how to correctly measure the device, IMO.

Again.  I don't think any of us can argue the positive and negative current flows in terms of this convention.  But when you claim that the  'direction of the force remains the same' then I'm not sure that this is correct.  We know that we can run a current through a circuit with polarised LED's that only light when the current flow is negative or positive.  Which speaks to a varying 'direction of force'.  Unless, obviously, I've misunderstood you.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

What's really called for here guys, is for Rosemary to get off her butt, stop making excuses, and either make the proper measurements as she's been advised to several times, or use another method, also as advised.

Mags' suggestion to compare two sets of batteries and loads is fine, but it requires a lot of work and time in terms of setting everything up and acquiring more batteries etc. And moreover, she is refusing to perform this test UNLESS her caveats are satisfied. How droll.

A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof. Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.

If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".

If neither bulb illuminates and the circuit is running and heating the element, then once again it would be overunity. (However, if neither bulb illuminates, it would first be prudent to try several lower wattage bulbs before jumping to this conclusion).

If both bulbs illuminate, then it would have to be determined which is dissipating the most power, especially if it is not obvious by their relative intensities.

.99

What's really called for here guys, is for Rosemary to get off her butt, stop making excuses, and either make the proper measurements as she's been advised to several times, or use another method, also as advised.

Mags' suggestion to compare two sets of batteries and loads is fine, but it requires a lot of work and time in terms of setting everything up and acquiring more batteries etc. And moreover, she is refusing to perform this test UNLESS her caveats are satisfied. How droll.

A simpler, easier, and quicker definitive method to determine if the circuit is indeed using energy from the batteries or not, is to implement the test per the following diagram. The RATS have NOT done this test on the apparatus for which the claims are based, and anything less than this does not qualify as proof. Now, we all know that Rosemary is going to say she has already done this test, but there has been no proof offered to convincingly demonstrate that this test was performed on the same apparatus referred to in the papers, and in the video. When and until such evidence is provided, it will be assumed that this test has NOT been performed as described.

The test is extremely simple to set up. Once done, it's only a matter of observing which, if either of the bulbs, illuminate. It's that simple. After ensuring that both bulbs function normally, install them for the test.

If only the "Current Supplied" bulb illuminates, then the circuit uses battery energy and it is over all "underunity".

If only the "Current Returned" bulb illuminates, then the circuit returns more energy to the battery than it uses, and it is over all "overunity".

If neither bulb illuminates and the circuit is running and heating the element, then once again it would be overunity. (However, if neither bulb illuminates, it would first be prudent to try several lower wattage bulbs before jumping to this conclusion).

If both bulbs illuminate, then it would have to be determined which is dissipating the most power, especially if it is not obvious by their relative intensities.

.99

Can you suggest what light bulbs to use that would not affect the circuit operation due to changing resistance when heating? Voltage, watts.

And also suggest what diodes to use?  ;]

Mags

Maybe low ohm non inductive resistors instead of the bulbs, then monitored via 2 scope probes? Then there is no question of inverted functions and such, because the directional diodes determine that.

Mags

Mags, this would work also, yes.

Here's how I would do it. Note that you could also use voltage meters in place of oscilloscope channels. We are interested in the average current in both directions, and a voltage meter set on DC volts will reliably measure that for us.

If using a scope however, ENSURE THAT NO SCOPE OR FG PROBES ARE STILL PRESENTLY CONNECTED TO THE RAT CIRCUIT.

.99

Mags, this would work also, yes.

Here's how I would do it. Note that you could also use voltage meters in place of oscilloscope channels. We are interested in the average current in both directions, and a voltage meter set on DC volts will reliably measure that for us.

If using a scope however, ENSURE THAT NO SCOPE PROBES ARE STILL PRESENTLY CONNECTED TO THE RAT CIRCUIT.

.99

I'm glad you put in that last part. As I have tried to point out before, unless special pains are taken, in most cases with common instruments, including most oscilloscopes like the LeCroy Rosemary is using, and most function generators..... ALL PROBE GROUNDS (for non-differential probes) and ALL FG GROUNDS (negative leads, shields) will be COMMON and will provide current paths through the instruments themselves--- paths which will be unmonitored. Hence, if ANY of these grounds are connected to points in the circuit which are at different potentials -- AS SHOWN IN ROSEMARY'S CIRCUIT DIAGRAM ABOVE -- there will be current flow.

The Fluke ScopeMeters 123 and 199 have fully-isolated grounds, so the channels can be used completely independently (up to 600V difference in the grounds). But just about every other instrument I can think of has all probe grounds connected internally, and to the chassis ground which is probably connected to the linecord ground pin. Ditto the FGs-- the "shield" or negative output lead may be connected to the chassis ground which is connected to the line cord ground pin.

My dear Gyula,
I not only did not object to your input - but welcomed it.  I only tried to argue the point that we could most certainly get that effect mirrored with the use of P-channel MOSFETS.  Which I thought was relevant.

What I do argue - strongly - is that Q2 source is able to conduct current from the battery supply.  Not only can it not do this - unless it literally moves through the Function Generator to reach the signal terminal - but it would then deal with considerably more resistance than the 50 Ohms resistance of that probe.  I trust you see that the Q2's source leg is absolutely NOT connected to the battery source rail or negative terminal as Poynty needs to refer to it.  And I have been given every assurance that the current from the battery supply would need to move through that leg of the MOSFET if it was to discharge current.  Else it simply cannot discharge current flow.  It remains disconnected. 

Regarding parastic oscillations - I really only meant to draw your attention to the unusual nature of this oscillation.  But you are right.  We do not, typically, deal with  voltages that would unduly punish the voltage tolerance of those transistors.  We have, in fact, run tests where the voltages are in excess of the 1200 volts but that's for very, very short durations and I have not included samples in our paper.  My quarrel, if I have one, is that you have assumed, like everyone else, that there is a 'path' for the current from the battery directly onto the gate of Q1 to the gate of Q2 - thereby bypassing the source leg of Q2.  Which means that you are also, thereby, assuming that the battery is somehow responsible for the all the current that is measured above zero in that oscillation.  Which is simply not the case.  We would - most certainly - see this in the voltage across that switch.  And there's virtually no significant voltage there at all.

But.  Having said that - I am most grateful for your input.  You raised points about the battery and how long it lasted.  I didn't address this because I didn't want to lose the focus.  Frankly I was hoping you'd look again at that oscillation and try and puzzle it's existence assuming that the battery discharge of current was not in the equation.  Also, I'm delighted that you engaged at all.  You are clearly an expert.  Much needed in this discussion.  So thank you very much.  And should you look again at the question related to the battery current flow through Q2 - then I'd be very grateful indeed.

But there are yet other questions in this circuit of ours that seem to be eluding you all.  And I would be glad if you could address them - when and if you have the time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Golly Pointy Point.  Your manners, as ever, are loutish.  I have no intention of redoing the test that you propose.  And nor is it definitive.  Now.  I know that you never read my posts.  More's the pity.  BUT LET ME EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN.  We have DONE THAT TEST.  We used LED's.  Two opposing banks.  The ONE BANK STAYS LIT CONTINUOUSLY.  The other doesn't light at all.  This notwithstanding the reversing current flow.  This speaks to our analysis of that charge property in the current.  One day - I'm rather hoping - that you'll actually take the trouble to READ our paper.  Then you'll know what we're CLAIMING and not what you THINK we're claiming.

As ever,
Rosie Pose.