This if for Schubert and, possibly, Flux It - if you're interested. 

Here are some of those pictures that Poynty posted in my previously 'locked thread'.  Can't remember which because there seems to have been so many of them.  In any event I had a couple of downloads on file.  Here they are.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

And Flux It.  Thanks for giving me that 'link'.   

Those circuit are totally different from the one posted before, look like the second in this page are correct Mosfet positively biased can pulse your inductor in a normal way...
In the first look like the gate is controlled an inductor just like a Bedini...
But the -5 Volts generator still bother me, it look like the + side is connected to ground side of the circuit but the polarity is reversed, look like you have a -5 Volts at the ground side and a 0 Volts a the + side...
Do you try a split the positive config ?
But the split the positive is more like putting for example two + side of battery facing each other:
For example a "Bedini" radiant config will be - //////+ > -//////+ > +//////-
Positive split at the two last batteries !

Better contrast.

The schematic (brown background) is mine. This was not your circuit per se; it was a rendition that eliminated the FG. I was reducing your circuit down to its most basic form, and that was the last step. The FG was removed and therefore the circuit oscillates continuously rather than in burst mode. The second schematic is from your crew I believe when they simulated the circuit.

I think only one person discovered your "error" before you actually revealed it, and it was "you know who".

Regarding my test, yes coming along nicely. Batteries are still charging. They are being charged one at a time, and there are 10 total. I want 5  or 6 good batteries to start.

And guys,

Just in case it's not clear WHY this negative wattage number is significant - it's this.  We apply standard measurement protocols to the amount of energy delivered by the battery against the amount of energy returned to the battery.  The delivered energy is represented as a positive value as the amperage flow is greater than zero.  The 'returned' energy is represented as a negative value as the amperage flow is less than zero.  The two values are then summed.  IF Kirchhoff's rulings are RIGHT - then we should NEVER get a result that is anything less than 1.  In other words the amount of energy delivered will ALWAYS exceed the amount of energy returned.  And under ideal circumstances we should be able to PRECISELY relate that difference to the amount of energy that is dissipated - as heat or motion or both - over the circuit components.  What should NEVER happen is that the amount of energy returned exceeds the amount of energy delivered.

The minute this is evident - then we're into a new ballpark.  It means this.  Either our measurement protocols are essentially FLAWED.  Or it means that there's an alternate supply of energy on the circuit.  There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Now.  There are those of you who read here who will recall that we've done this test where we measured 'apparent' gains resulting in some value greater than Unity.  But until we configured this circuit we've NEVER seen values that actually EXCEED the amount of energy first delivered.  And that's why this new generation of our switching circuit is so very intriguing.  And why it's so deserving of 'review'.

And of interest.  I've been to some pains to explain that we've FOUND NOTHING NEW.  And indeed we haven't.  This result is 'required' by those Dark Energy enthusiasts who have measured a 'binding' force in our galaxies.  And it's required by our string theorists who have required an all pervasive universal force that exceeds our known forces.  The only reason that this has remained hidden for so long  is because no-one before looked for that evidence in an electric application.  And this was largely due to the expectations which relied on Kirchhoff's assumptions.  Fortunately I was that 'unschooled' that I actually saw some relevance in testing this.  And that's because our own little thesis entirely supports our Dark Energy theorists.  And this should sit well with the most of you.  Because it conforms to those insights by Tesla and I think we're all Tesla enthusiasts here.

I hope that makes the relevance of all this clearer.  Because - IF INDEED - there is this 'negative wattage' then it also means that we're grossly UNDERUSING the potentials in the delivery of electric energy.   And that way - we can - hopefully - do better.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

My Dear Poynty Point.

What you need to do is make ALL your sim information available.  Else no-one will ever give any credibility to any of your findings ever again.  Surely you KNOW THIS?  If you were in the LEAST bit interested in promoting studies in over unity - then you should be falling over your feet in your anxiety to explain how this simulation is done.  Even if it's simply to explore that strange oscillation.  And?  Strangely you're not?  In fact you're ACTIVELY promoting their disengagement?  Why is that?

You've proposed multiple reasons why the oscillation is happening at all.  This includes incorrect probe positions - the fact that a battery applies a negative current flow when it discharges it energy - the fact that the battery can discharge its energy straight across the gate of a MOSFET and bypass it's own source.  Alternatively that it can run a course right through the ground terminal and into the signal probe and across an applied negative signal.  You've proposed that our measurements are erroneous as they apply to the position of the current sensing resistor - to the miscalculation of the applied impedance value - and even to the fact that those resistors have inductance associated with them. Which is correct - by the way (BTW) BUT not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to our results.  You've suggested that the battery can discharge its energy in a 'one step' 'two step' dance step - as it chooses which MOSFET gate to use.  But you stopped that argument short of explaining why then the waveform was not 'purely positive'.  You've relied on arguments related to my ignorance, duplicity, stupidity, antiquity, vacuity, lunacy and general absurdity.  You've accused our collaborators variously of being 'morons' or untrained in matters scientific - or not existing at all - as they WISELY defer from posting on these forums.  And all this while you seriously proposed that we re-write our standard model in line with that rather absurd 'paper' that you ventured where your counterarguments were confined to a poor little academic who was relegated to the sidelines and only allowed to express astonishment at your revisionary visions.   Not to mention your heavy subscription to my 'hate blog' where you state what you like freed from all editorial constraints unless they're either 'positive' or 'on track'. 

You relied on that sim evidence to disprove EVERYTHING.  The problem with all sims is that its an easy path for the most of you trained in electronics to quickly test all this - as Flux It explained.  Now.  Once that starts on forum - as I'm well aware of it happening 'off' forum - then more and more people will start duplicating that OSCILLATION that you and your 'friends' advised us had no relevance.

And you and I both know that there is no explanation within the standard model for that waveform.  But it's fully explained with a minor extension to Faraday's Lines of Force.  Which is what we propose.  For some reason ANY THEORY is preferred over this?  I wonder why that it?  Could it be that it will actually ASSIST in this DRIVE to energy efficiency?  Maybe?  GOLLY.

So.  WHY POYNTY POINT are you on the wrong side of this drive of ours?

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

For the following reasons, I don't see the need to post all my simulations again:

1) They've been posted in this thread to some degree, and in your "demonstration" thread also on this forum. There is also a document posted that goes through the measurement analysis. So it's all here already.

2) No one here is asking for these simulation posts, except you. And you've already seen them all.

I'm sure the 3 readers here are much more keen on seeing my actual test results, as they'll be much more convincing than the simulation.

I would love to see test results, and the simulation was much more of a visualization tool, as I am not implying any accuracy of its results. But the simplicity of the simulator makes an excellent design tool that anyone can use to post a circuit example. Personally looking back to find circuits and test results in this topic is like watching a boxing match in slo mo

Not taking any sides, I just think there should be more solid information. Will you be using a 555 in your tests?

Flux It.  The simulation is EXTRAORDINARY.  Simply because it is able to compute a negative wattage - which, as explained, is anomalous - at its least.  But what is really odd is that the sim can allow for that 'above ground' voltage.  From what I saw of Schubert's sim - it gives a result that was more or less predicted by Poynty.  However, Poynt's own sims are able to replicate that waveform.  Either the sim is assuming a discharge from the battery supply - or it's allowing 'logically' for the development of CEMF to run both halves of each oscillation waveform.  If the former - then there SHOULD be a path from the battery supply to allow for that positive half.  And we none of us can find that path.  It is most certainly NOT a conventional path through the Gate at Q2 - because if it was - then it would need to bypass the Q2 source leg.  And if it's allowing for the path from CEMF to run both halves of the oscillation then the question is 'how does this compute with the standard model?'.  Because CEMF  should only result from 'stored energy' - at best. 

Also.  If we simply parallel the transistors - in the usual way - then we don't get the oscillation at all.  My own guess is that the sim software simply applies inductive laws which kick in when each oscillation reaches its peak.  Which means that they've only used INDUCTIVE LAWS.  And that still leaves one with the need to resolve the polarity.  It's not straight forward.

In any event.  Poynty and others have got my paper.  If you want 'results' I'll be glad to forward this to you.  Just email me or PM me with your email address and I'll forward them.

Regards,
Rosemary