another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now.  Back to your proposals here Poynty Point,

1) Open source this testing. Meaning? Get a number of folks involved, even if they can not be there to witness the tests. A few members here from OU (Wilby, Mags, Gyuala, Stefan perhaps), a few from OUR, and a few of your folks. We hammer out an acceptable test protocol and decision factors we are all happy with.

Frankly I'd be more than happy to settle for any proposals at all that are made by Wilby.  And I've effectively structured the entire test around the proposals made by Magsy.  Stefan's only concern is with the use of the function generator.  And since his concerns here relate to the grounding issues - we can obviate this very easily - as I explained.  Gyuala is a latecomer to the arguments but I'm also happy with his input.  And indeed with any proposal made by anyone at all.  Provided only that they relate to our circuit and the apparatus detailed in our paper.  And that the proposals are reasonable or doable within the constraints of the equipment that we can access. But your point 2 here - Poynty Point.  That's been explained now.  I hope. 

2) There is a much easier, cheaper and quicker way to settle the COP question...The method I propose is the dual light bulb idea I described some time back. Two power diodes and two 60W or 100W light bulbs are placed in series with the positive lead from the batteries. I would suggest as a prerequisite, you confirm first that with these diodes and bulbs installed, the apparatus still exhibits the same or similar infinite COP measurement you are seeing now. I would strongly suggest too that the two light bulbs be fully covered with a cardboard box for this prerequisite test.

We can't do this as a definitive test.  But if required we can include a small test showing this effect.  We ran our own test off a 555.

And if all agreed, I would be willing to consult with Stefan, Steven Jones, and the contributors to the OUR Award to seriously consider this as a "GO" test for the prizes.

Actually we'll pas on this.  We're none of us really interested in these prizes.  For a variety of reasons.  But perhaps we could propose that you donated this - on our behalf - to one of our better experimentalists here - for the purchase of some zut measuring equipment.  Or better still give it to someone to take their studies further - like a scholarship award - so that one of our worthy members can study further.  Something like that?  I'm sure you'll find some worthy cause.  I only used that 'claim' for your prizes to force acknowledgement of our claim.  LOL.  God knows.  There was no other way to get you guys to take us seriously. And as for this...

No academics required. I would like to have an electrical engineer there to be a non-biased judge/observer of the test to verify the outcome. This could be a hired professional from the Cape Town area.

This is a non-starter.  It's a critical condition to engagement here Poynty Point.  You well know why.  But trust me on this.  We'll get those academics on board.  If not before our papers are published - then certainly AFTER.  And I'm rather hopeful that this may also be 'before'.  We'll see.  God knows I tend to way too much optimism.  But I'll certainly give it my best shot.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

The voltage across the shunt shows that current is flowing clockwise and anticlockwise through the circuit.  Therefore one would expect the LED's in our tests - to alternate - first the one rail - then the other - depending on the current polarity.  But what actually happens is that ONLY the one rail stays lit.  Is that clearer?

Rosemary,

Yes it's clear now what your objection to this test is based upon.

You believe that since the battery current appears to be fluctuating both above and below ground reference level, that both LEDS should be lit.

There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct? The closer the voltage and current are in-phase, the more power will be dissipated in that element, up to a maximum when the voltage and current are perfectly in-phase. This is a power factor of "1". In the situation when the voltage and current are 90 degrees out-of-phase, there will be zero power dissipated in that element, and is a result of a power factor of "0".

So, although the current is fluctuating both above and below the ground reference level when viewed on the scope trace across the shunt, the voltage and current considered together are in-phase only for one direction of current, and as a result, only one LED remains lit. The one that is lit indicates which direction real net power is coming from, i.e. either from the battery or from the circuit.

If there was equal power from the battery and the circuit, then both LEDs would be lit.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes it's clear now what your objection to this test is based upon.

You believe that since the battery current appears to be fluctuating both above and below ground reference level, that both LEDS should be lit.

There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct? The closer the voltage and current are in-phase, the more power will be dissipated in that element, up to a maximum when the voltage and current are perfectly in-phase. This is a power factor of "1". In the situation when the voltage and current are 90 degrees out-of-phase, there will be zero power dissipated in that element, and is a result of a power factor of "0".

So, although the current is fluctuating both above and below the ground reference level when viewed on the scope trace across the shunt, the voltage and current considered together are in-phase only for one direction of current, and as a result, only one LED remains lit. The one that is lit indicates which direction real net power is coming from, i.e. either from the battery or from the circuit.

If there was equal power from the battery and the circuit, then both LEDs would be lit.

Not actually Poynty Point.  You're ASSUMING that the battery is delivering power in the first instance.  How can it?  It's disconnected.  Certainly during the oscillation phase. Therefore where is there any phase shift considerations at at all?  Golly.

Regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

You're ASSUMING that the battery is delivering power in the first instance.

Am I? Where?

How can it?  It's disconnected.  Certainly during the oscillation phase. Therefore where is there any phase shift considerations at at all?  Golly.

Phase shift is evident in all parts of this circuit. There is inductance and capacitance, and a high frequency oscillation. In fact if it weren't for a significant degree of phase shift, the circuit wouldn't oscillate at all.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's where you claim that the current is from the battery - Poynty Point.

There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct?

There is NO current flow from that SOURCE.  Unless you mean something entirely different by the use of the word 'source'?

Rosie Pose
ADDED - FOR EMPHASIS