Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[MrMag]

You've already referenced 1701.  Not sure of your point.  Are you asking me if the measured voltage across a battery is INDICATIVE OF IT'S CHARGE?  I certainly HOPE SO.  Or why do we EVER bother to measure battery voltage.  I think it can all rest happy on the evidence of the average calibrated volt meter? 

Rosemary

Oh my, thanks for the laugh, that's a good one.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

After 30 secs googling, knowing what I was looking for, I found this:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=130930223624230&topic=195

1. If the battery has just been charged or if the vehicle has been driven recently, it is necessary to remove the surface charge from the battery before testing. A surface charge is a charge of higher-than-normal voltage that is just on the surface of the battery plates. The surface charge is quickly removed when the battery is loaded and therefore does not accurately represent the true state of charge of the battery."

You have an un-regulated charging circuit with high frequency, high amplitude current spikes running while you are taking your voltage readings... CORRECT ?

RM

RM.  We do NOT have an unregulated charging circuit.  But we do have high frequencies and high amplitude current spikes.  So high that the voltage across the battery exceeds its rating to more than double.  That's on the recharge cycle.  Then it drops to below its rated voltage to about 1 volt - AND, at times, even to a negative voltage.  Here's the APPROPRIATE question.  HOW CAN IT FLUCTUATE THAT WIDELY?  BECAUSE - and this is the WHOLE OF THE POINT - the battery as claimed by POYNTY - STILL STAYS THE SAME.  And let me see if you can possibly get this - because NO-ONE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THIS THREAD HAS EVEN GOT CLOSE.  The battery voltages - DISCONNECTED - are still the same as they were when we first got them. 

This means, effectively, that some current was applied to those batteries that evidently DID NOT COME FROM THOSE BATTERIES.  Neither in the recharge cycle nor in the discharge cycle.  THAT was the point of those tests.  And THAT is the topic of the papers.  And all you guys go ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT is the state of charge of those batteries.  THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME AS THEY WERE WHEN WE GOT THEM.  THERE IS NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE.  DISCONNECTED OR CONNECTED.  WITH OUR WITHOUT RESIDUAL CHARGE. 

If you even addressed the actual questions that are raised by all that test evidence it would help.  I feel that I'm walking through treacle when I address your posts.  You are SO far OFF the point. 

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And then just to continue on WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS ?  Here's another.  The current flow through those batteries are reversing - as shown by a nearly pure sinusoidal waveform crossing zero.  The battery and the shunt voltages are at 180 degrees in anti phase.  Every time that the battery discharges the current flow is shown to be moving a clockwise direction - and every time it recharges the current is shown to be moving in an anticlockwise direction.  This is STANDARD.  BUT.  When it moves in a clockwise direction it simply  bypasses TWO OPPOSING BODY DIODES AND THE NEGATIVE CHARGE APPLIED AT THE GATE of those transistors.  YET.  NOTA BENE AGAIN.  The two opposing body diodes and the negative charge applied at the gate OPPOSES A CLOCKWISE FLOW OF CURRENT.  SO?  What is there in the properties of this current flow that enables this flow.  BECAUSE - it is UNQUESTIONABLY crossing zero and reversing its previous recharge cycle.

I hope you guys get this.  It's such an INTERESTING point.  And it's FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT than this obsession with the state of battery charge.

Rosemary

[evolvingape]

Rose,

What do you think an UNREGULATED CHARGING CIRCUIT is ? You obviously have no idea. Do you know the difference between a steady state and a pulsed charging circuit and how both operate ? I think not. If you do NOT have an unregulated charging circuit please show where in your circuit diagram the charge regulator is... I cannot find it on the schematic!

Do you know that you have both a LOAD and an OSCILLATING RECHARGING PULSE in operation at the same time due to the parasitic oscillation ? I am beginning to wonder.

Do you know that a charging cycle creates a FALSE SURFACE CHARGE on the surface of the plates which is what your “calibrated multimeter” is reading ?

Do you know that a Voltage reading is a VERY POOR indicator of the state of charge and measure of the amount of ENERGY in a battery ?

Do you know that a battery can sit idle for long lengths of time while being charge depleted and still show 12V or thereabouts ?

You are walking through treacle Rose, and it's Rosemary Ainslie brand.

I am beginning to wonder if you know anything at all!

RM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

How can you claim that you are charging the batteries if you don't perform this test.

First of all, you cannot change the test parameters that you used previously as when the batteries run down, you will have all kinds of reasons for it. Secondly, "We have 2 banks of batteries.  They are BOTH running at the same temperature.  The one is connected in series with batteries." Huh??? If you really want me to understand, i think you need to do better then this.

lol  Really Nag - you are something else.  When a load is connected in series it means that they are simply hooked up in the standard way.  No switching circuitry.  lol. Does that help?

You are trying to make this more complicated then necessary. Do you really need to boil water or could you use something like glycol or oil? I am not sure of the boiling point or either but I would expect that either one would be acceptable.

It doesn't matter what you use.  The fact is that it will need monitoring.  The good point about using water is that it has an immediate application relevance.  But whether we used anything else - makes no difference.  The signal is BRITTLE.  It needs monitoring.  The waveform analysis is CRUCIAL.  It's required for the effect.  It needs monitoring.  There is no way around this.  But it's fine.  I'll MONITOR.  I'll do that test.  BUT CERTAINLY NOT UNLESS IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR THIS PROOF.  And - so far - I've NOT got ANY academics who will put their reputations on the line that THIS IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.

Your first paragraph says that you are running at low wattage. Now there is so much energy in the circuit???

And as for this.  We have run in the region of 50 tests.  ALL OF THEM ARE DESIGNED TO DELIVER MORE OR LESS WATTAGE.  WE ARE WELL ABLE TO DETERMINE THE WATTAGE OUTPUT REQUIRED.  Good Heavens.

I really don't understand why in the last 10 years that you couldn't of made modifications to the circuit so that it could run without burning up.

I can understand this.  You're not an experimentalist.  If you were you would NOT be asking this question.

Sounds to me like your to busy trying to make a name for yourself then to develop a workable circuit.

lol.  And you think that by writing in this thread that I'm 'making a name for myself'?    I suppose I am.  But it's not the kind of name that one typically strives for.  Golly.     In fact I think I'm doing myself an intense disservice IF that was my motive.  FAR BETTER to just keep my nose clean and my name pristine - by NEVER posting here at all.  Golly.

There is one thing I know.  Cat doesn't care - one way or another.  He just wants me off this thread and to hell with the harm or help to OU.  Evolvingape has his own agenda but he probably has enough acumen to actually understand the issues.  You, on the other hand HAVE NO CLUE.  It's a shame.  Because your posts could otherwise be constructive.

Rosemary