Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[MrMag]

OK, I see where your heading with this and yes, I think you are right about it. It is so much easier to discuss things with a true professional. When things are presented in a clear manner, it is a lot easier to understand. What you have posted makes a lot more sense to me then the following statements:

No Mr Mag.  I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums.  I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own.  If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies.  We only ever hear from the noisy minority.   I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners.  They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own.   ......

And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE.  Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me.  You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow.  THAT'S how the members here work.

But it would be nice if you didn't also try and engage our members here with your own muddles.  It seems that those such as HAPPY and MR MAG are as ignorant as you are.

You would not see a benefit if it stood up to introduce itself.  And you certainly won't recognise it even when it eventually reaches out to bite you - where it hurts most - which is somewhere in the region of your intellects - which are evidently unable to ask questions - let alone answer them.

And as for your forlorn hope that there's the required expertise on Poynty's forum - disabuse yourself.  They're all trying to follow Poynt's examples of Pin and Pout measurements which are UTTERLY meaningless - as they are certainly NOT the required protocols in mainstream science. AND they're certainly NOT citable as they all shelter their reputations behind aliases - LIKE YOU.  And notwithstanding this protection they afford their own reputations - they actively work to try and destry mine.

I'm absolutely NOT prepared to answer any more of your posts.  They're a waste of my time.  Just do your own tests.  There's nothing stopping you.

Added.  And while I'm at it -  may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it.  If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name.  Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations.  Put your own on the line and be counted.

Poor, poor Rose. The biggest problem with Rose is that she is saying 1+1=3. No matter who or how many people try to explain to her that 1+1=2 she will never accept it. If she would only try to listen instead of being so defensive.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks Poynt.  Now all we need is the shunt and battery voltages per your math trace.  Can you oblige?

Ta muchly,
Rosie

POYNT - I'm reposting this to remind you.  We all need to see that number and, ideally, the waveform across the shunt.

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I deleted an earlier post.  I got sucked in - AGAIN - into answering yet more irrelevant absurdities.  I need to stay focused.  So.  Poynty Point.  Please share the math numbers from that latest sim posting. I'm trying to find out where that v1 -5 value comes from.  Is it the voltage across the shunt?

And by the way - are there any setting on the sim that can take the battery voltage below zero at any stage of that oscillation? 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose, your kidding me right? We are not talking about a 17 hour test here are we. Do you even bother to read the post from us asking to do a draw down test or are you just thinking of finding ways to attack us. I am not asking about battery performance, I am asking to run a continuous test to see if your circuit can keep the batteries charged. If you don't understand this simple request I can try to put it in a simpler manner for you. ( I typed the above two sentences very slowly for your convenience).

Correct - A battery comparison test probably doesn't mean anything.

Running your circuit continuously for a duration of the battery watt/hour rating will prove something. It will prove if your device performs like you say it will or not. It's that simple.

In the last 10 years have you ran your circuit continuous for the above time period? If not, Why?

Actually I REALLY need to answer this escalating piece of absurdity.  It just gets under the skin. 

The idea in determining the performance of a battery can ONLY BE MEASURED AGAINST ITS WATT HOUR RATING.  IF a battery's watt hour rating is 10 ampere hours - then it means that the battery can deliver 10 amps x 12 volts x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour giving a maximum POTENTIAL output of 430 000 JOULES.  This value can be marginally INCREASED OR DECREASED depending on the rate of current discharge. 

THEREFORE to CORRECTLY DETERMINE OUR NUMBERS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS TO RUN A CONTROL IN CONJUCTION WITH THE TEST BATTERIES.  Provided that they are dissipating the same amount of heat then one must expect them to discharge at the same rate.  IF THE BATTERIES on the CONTROL discharge BEFORE the batteries on the test - then there is a proof of the TEST BATTERIES are producing the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK at the cost of less energy from that supply.  Therefore there is proof of an OUT PERFORMANCE of the test batteries as determined by their watt hour rating.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER APPROPRIATE TEST AND THAT TEST ONLY DETERMINES THE CIRCUIT PERFORMANCE AS IT RELATES TO A BATTERY SUPPLY.  There is nothing in our findings that precludes these advantages being shown from any supply source at all - be it a utility supply, or solar or wind generators.

And if you think for one moment that there are any professionals anywhere in the world who care two hoots if your name is Mr Mags or Dr Dolittle - or Professor Poseur - THEN DISABUSE YOURSELF.  No-one cares.  Evidently.  Not even you.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

MrMag et al,

A draw down test against the amp-hour rating of the battery is only doable if you have an accurate and reliable measurement of the power consumption, or more specifically, the net average ampere usage.

Unless a DMM is placed across the CSR, or if the scope is set to compute MEAN of the CSR trace, we would not know what the net average ampere usage is. And this is a volatile subject all on its own because of the misunderstanding regarding probe orientation.

The best test as I mentioned long ago, is a battery state of charge (SOC) measurement over time. The beauty of this method is that it does not require weeks or months of testing. At most all that would be required is about a week. Take a SOC reading every 12 hours, plot the readings out vs. time, and look for a trend.

.99

PS. Measuring a battery's SOC:
http://www.diy-nos.freeserve.co.uk/testing-battery.htm

Hi .99
Isn't the claim now that the batteries do not discharge.... that the circuit, in operation, keeps the batteries charged?
And the competing claim is that the energy to boil the water, or heat the load, is supplied by the battery and so the battery will discharge at a particular rate... that is, its amp-hour capacity is a published figure and should indicate how long the system should run if nothing unusual were occurring.

So the test proposed by MrMag is simple and good, and doesn't need any sophisticated analysis at all. The energy required to boil a known quantity of water is known, or to heat a load to a certain equilibrium temperature is known (or can be, by calibrating with DC). Hence, all that is necessary to PROVE that Rosemary is right is to show that the circuit will continue to run. If the COP is infinite then the batteries should not discharge at all and the circuit will only stop when a component fails.
On the other hand.... should the circuit only run as long as the battery's A-H capacity would predict..... that would prove something else entirely.

No apparatus beyond the Ainslie circuit and a watch... or calendar.... is needed for this test. You don't even need a control experiment. Just hook the thing up and let it run... and run.... and run...... until the batteries either discharge, or we die of old age.

My predictions are these:
First, Rosemary won't do the simple test.
Second, when the test IS done, the batteries will run down in a normal amount of time.

Don't forget.... who was the FIRST one to boil water using the Ainslie circuit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8