another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

What you are struggling to understand, is quite simple.

Power is conserved in every circuit. The amount of power delivered, is equal to the amount of power dissipated.

Refer to the simple diagram again.

NB. Using the correctly-denoted potentials and direction of current in the circuit as shown, the power in the battery is computed to be a NEGATIVE value (-V x I), and the power in the load is POSITIVE (V x I).

I know this has blown your mind Rosemary, so let me elaborate to make this more clear. The arrows denoting the clockwise direction of the current (RED) is also the direction you travel with your eyes as you are placing your scope probes (positive first, negative next) across each component**. Let's start at the ground potential on the battery negative:

1a) Starting from the ground upward, we see the potential difference across the battery is - to +, or in other words a negative value. So the "V" used to compute P_VBAT is a "-V".

1b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, therefore the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute P_VBAT is a "I".

1c) The battery power then is: P_VBAT = -V x I = -W (a negative value!)

2a) Now continuing clockwise from the positive terminal of VBAT, we see the potential difference across the load resistor is + to -, or in other words a positive value. So the "V" used to compute P_RLOAD is a "V".

2b) We are traveling with our eyes in the direction of the current, so once again the current is positive. So the "I" used to compute P_RLOAD is a "I".

2c) The load power then is: P_RLOAD = V x I = W (a positive value opposite to that for P_VBAT!)

The values of P_VBAT and P_RLOAD are equal but opposite in polarity, therefore if we assume no losses in the wiring, the sum of all the powers in any circuit is zero.

Once again in summary, in a circuit where the battery is supplying power, the power computation for the battery will yield a negative value. The loads in any circuit will yield a positive value for the power being dissipated.

Now, since your measurements in your paper yielded a negative value for the battery power, one must conclude that your batteries are on average, supplying power to the circuit.

However, since your scope probes across the battery are placed in reverse according to the polarity dictated by the path your eyes must take as you go around the loop as we just did above, you actually have the opposite result, i.e. one should now conclude that the battery is on average, receiving power from the circuit, because P_VBAT would now be positive, and P_RLOAD negative.

But alas, your scope probe placement for the battery voltage measurement is at the far end of several feet of battery cable, and the inductance therein is causing your battery voltage measurement to be skewed by the reactive impedance, i.e. phase shift, which has resulted in an incorrect voltage measurement when used to compute the power. Hence, not only is the polarity of P_VBAT opposite in your case, the amplitude is wrong as well.

If properly measured, and with polarities accounted for, your battery power computation would yield a result showing that they are indeed supplying a net average of about 30W of power to the load, and yes it would be a negative value.

** As it is not always practical to place your scope probes according to the direction of current, the conventional placement of probes is to have them according to the potential difference across the components as shown. When a CSR is used in the ground leg of the battery, for convenience it's probes are placed in reverse to that of the battery. This all adds to the confusion regarding the polarity of the power in both the battery and loads (the CSR is also considered a load), but the point is to remember that the power polarity of sources and loads is opposite to one another. In cases like Rosemary's it is important not to construe a negative power value as to indicate infinite COP.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Good gracious.  Poynty Point - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING

When I've finished here, I'll take take the trouble to argue each and every statement that you've referred to in your last post - not because it's deserved - but because I'm ALARMED.  I'm alarmed that no-one is coming forward to say 'POYNTY ARE YOU MAD?'.   Bubba - Gravityblock - HopToad - EVERYONE has a sense of competence when it comes to the definitions of energy.  But they say NOTHING about this nonsense?  Have you FOOLED THEM TOO?  REALLY?  You really BELIEVE this rubbish?  You ACTUALLY, SINCERELY BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID?

Is this why you 'interjected' that curious conversation into your paper - with that poor academic who was relegated to a two-point rather inarticulate protest?  And all he could do was MUMBLE - in heavily edited 'blue' italics?  A novel convention, by the way.      Would that we could all validate our arguments by inventing the existence of a dumbfounded academic.  It would make life so much simpler.  lol.  Golly.  No need to apply logic.  Just take the standard model - throw a lot of confused arguments at it - like coconuts in a coconut shy - and then CLAIM endorsement from an unknown academic?  You're right.  If we did this, then we could, indeed, and very easily, simply turn the standard model of physics UPSIDE DOWN.  It ENTIRELY does away with the need for reason. 

It's STAGGERING.  And then you have the temerity - the bare faced gall - to inform the ENTIRE WORLD that that it is I, Rosemary Ainslie that is fantasizing a new form of physics?  That I'm the VICTIM OF MY IMAGINATION.  Golly.  When all WE'RE doing, by contrast, is to SHOW ACTUAL RESULTS - as required - and measured using conventional protocols - WITHIN the standard model.  And this ONLY to expose a potential that has been somewhat OVERLOOKED. And, may I add,  which, in my modest opinion, has already been argued by both Einstein and Faraday. 

Now.  Poynty.  CONCENTRATE.  For current to flow - it first and ALWAYS requires a SOURCE OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  That potential difference is measured as VOLTAGE.  THEN.  WHEN current is discharged - and provided that there's a path for that discharge - it will BE POSITIVE if THAT VOLTAGE SOURCE IS POSITIVE and it will be NEGATIVE if THAT VOLTAGE SOURCE IS NEGATIVE.  IN OTHER WORDS - it cannot and does not, magically ALTER IT'S POLARITY OR CHARGE - EVER.  Therefore, CORRECTLY - when the current is discharged by that battery in your schematic it is ONLY able to move in one direction through that circuit.  And, as you've correctly shown its directional path then it will be MEASURED as being GREATER THAN ZERO.  Had the VOLTAGE SOURCE applied a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE - then the current would have been LESS THAN ZERO.

I think your confusions - and I'm hoping they ARE confusions and not MISDIRECTIONS  - are based on the convention that determines that current flow is ACTUALLY from the negative terminal of the battery.  BUT.   IF YOU WISH TO APPLY THAT CONVENTION - then, you would also need to argue that the negative current is inducing a POSITIVE VOLTAGE over the circuit material.  And you see this I trust?  As you've shown them - those circuit components will ALL OF THEM - ACTUALLY measure a negatively induced voltage.  NOT a POSITIVE.

Really.  How many ways can you find to bastardise the standard model?  And AGAIN.  How is it that you can then ACCUSE ME OF DOING THIS?  It's no longer funny Poynty Point.  This is getting really serious

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Nice try Rosemary 

The fact that no one has objected to any points in my post ought to tell you something, and that something is quite contrary to the nonsense you've tried to make it out to be.

Study carefully and UNDERSTAND what is there. But I think we all know you won't, or can't, whatever the case may be.

Carry on Rosemary. But in case you haven't noticed, you've been talking largely to an uncaptivated audience, and I suppose that will remain so.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Nice try Rosemary 

The fact that no one has objected to any points in my post ought to tell you something, and that something is quite contrary to the nonsense you've tried to make it out to be.

Study carefully and UNDERSTAND what is there. But I think we all know you won't, or can't, whatever the case may be.

Carry on Rosemary. But in case you haven't noticed, you've been talking largely to an uncaptivated audience, and I suppose that will remain so.

.99

Poynt Point - SO IMPATIENT.   


I've just had to pop out for a while - just back.  But INDEED.  Unlike you I intend ARGUING your facile nonsense.  And I'm not trying to win a debate here Poynty Point.  There's nothing to debate. 

BRB -    - which I believe is the internet speak for 'be right back'.  And NTSYT by which I mean 'nice to see you there'.  And HGIITICCC - by which I mean - 'how goes it there In The Cold Climes of Canada?'  And.  It's WPYBT.  By which I mean it's 'way past your bed time'. 

Kindest regards,
rosie posie



EDITED - just some minor adjustments to my punctuation, spacing adjustments and a repositioning of this edit comment.  Anyway onwards and upwards with that post you're requesting - so sweetly.  And HOLD YOUR BREATH POYNTY POINT.  It's likely to ROCK.

And have now edited the edit.  Any to Anyway

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The trouble with your post is that it's a slew of entirely erroneous deductions based on entirely flawed observations presented with the characteristic heavy handed pomposity that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your agenda.  You're boring me to tears Poynty Point.  I've had to break up these answers into a series of posts and IF they appear to be getting too repetitive - then I'll try and find some means to abbreviate them.

Here's the first list of REFUTATIONS.  Golly.  I don't know why I bother.  It's not as if you're arguing real science.  Anyway.  Here goes.

What you are struggling to understand, is quite simple.

Power is conserved in every circuit. The amount of power delivered, is equal to the amount of power dissipated.

Not actually.  Power is NEVER conserved.  Energy is conserved.  And the amount of CURRENT flow x the applied source VOLTAGE X TIME is the amount of power that may be VARIOUSLY stored or DISSIPATED OVER the circuit components.

Refer to the simple diagram again.

NB. Using the correctly-denoted potentials and direction of current in the circuit as shown, the power in the battery is computed to be a NEGATIVE value (-V x I), and the power in the load is POSITIVE (V x I).

Not actually.  If the source voltage is positive - then the current flow will be positive.  If the source voltage is negative then the current flow will be negative.  The applied voltage across those circuit components MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT the source voltage that induces that current flow.

I know this has blown your mind Rosemary, so let me elaborate to make this more clear.

Not actually.  Pretentious, incorrect and befuddled science does nothing at all to my mind.

first break.

EDITED.  ADDED SOME MUCH NEEDED EMPHASIS.