another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Note these photos from Ains-lie's demo video. To get from the backside to the front, just rotate the backside right to left, like turning the page of a book.

There are 8 scope probes connected to the various parts of the circuit, with all their GROUNDS connected to the single point (or rather chain of points) labelled "B", as in the diagram and the narration show. Also connected here is the "negative" or shield lead of the INSTEK function generator's output with a black alligator clip, and a RED alligator clip... the only one shown.... is the "positive" output or center lead of the FG's output cable. And it is connected where? Well... on the diagram SHOWN IN THE VIDEO it's supposed to be connected to point "C". But it is actually connected to the point labelled "F" on the board, along with two scope probes and the red-sheathed lead from the lone mosfet....
From looking at the blurry shot of the back side of the board, one can determine that the 4 mosfets on the big heatsinks are connected "backwards" with gate and source pins connected to the source and gate pins of the lone mosfet. This is a separate issue from the mislabelling of points "F" and "C" on the board, which is relatively harmless although confusing. So the board shows the point labelled "F" is actually connected to the gate of the lone mosfet and the source pins of the other 4. Note the red wires from these mosfets which go to the bottom right length of threaded rod. Now flip the board over, and see that this connection is labelled "source" and is indeed connected to the source pin of the lone mosfet. But it's the gates of the group of 4.
I realize this has been gone over before and it's a bit complex. But it's clear that the circuit presented on the video is NOT the circuit depicted in the paper diagram shown beneath it in the video. The revised, 2-mosfet diagram which was presented to us AFTER the errors had been pointed out...... is the correct configuration EXCEPT that it does not correct the "F" and "C" points confusion. The "corrected" diagram also seems to be in error though... isn't the FG's "minus" lead connected at the same point as all the other ground leads in the actual circuit in the video? Yet the "corrected" diagram shows it connected on the other side of the shunt resistors.

And clearly.... the common drains (the middle pins) of all the mosfets are indeed being monitored by two scope probes, one from the Tek and one from the LeCroy.  Which channel on the TEK is being used to display the common drain signal? Let's see.... the purple trace is the battery voltage, the yellow trace is the voltage drop across the CVR (shunt), the blue trace is the signal from the FG (***taken from the point on the actual board marked "F", not C***) and the other trace.... of some other strange color that we won't mention.... is taken from the common drain connection, which is connected to the board at the point labelled "C" (***NOT "F"***), and this is where its probes are connected.

Usually, scope manufacturers give you little colored markers that you can place onto the probes themselves so you can keep this stuff straight. There are a few of them on Ains-lie's probes but the color is washed out and I can't tell what they are. But the behaviour of the traces themselves tells the story, to anyone who knows how to read an oscilloscope.
ETA: I believe the LeCroy probes are the more delicate, slender ones with the colored collar markers. But of course.... who knows if the markers are on the correct color channel probes in the first place. Knowing this bunch of clowns who can't even get their demonstrations straight... somehow I doubt it.

[TinselKoala]

(snip)
I would be very reluctant to assert this claim without the evidence of the battery outperforming it's watt hour rating.  You must remember that we've had these batteries now for more than 2 years - and have used them continuously for 18 months on various tests on virtually, a daily basis.  And in all that time we have not even had a single drop in voltage over these 6 batteries.  Two of them were taken out of the equation because they caught fire and needed recharging.  But we've not touched this remaining six with a recharger.  Ever.  And their voltage is EXACTLY where it was when we took delivery.  In any event.  As Poynty has pointed out.  This needs to be tested.  The sooner the better.
(snip)

How about you get that little video camera of yours out, and instead of pointing it at YOURSELF, point it at two or three of these "virtually daily" tests you are talking about, and SHOW IT BEING DONE.

And just how does a sealed silver calcium lead acid battery "catch fire"? There is one certain way to do it: short it out with a low-resistance current path, like dropping a tool onto the terminals and having it weld itself there.

Or are you claiming that your circuit magically overcharged them to the point of exploding?  I'm so tired of laughing at you my face hurts.

And now batteries are rated in "Watt hours". I suppose that's a SA thing... around here (and in the rest of the world) batteries have an Amp-Hour rating. To get to "watt hours" one must do some arithmetic... which is beyond your capacity, Rosemary Ains-lie.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello eatenbyagrue - and everybody

You'll all be pleased to read this.

I think my problem here is that I only ever asked anyone to comment on a principle.  Here's how I explained it.  "If joules is determined as watts per second then the total in joules is also then factored over the entire test period? And then either in writing or conversation - I also ONLY got absolute confirmation.  That this is indeed correct.  On request I subsequently forwarded the actual sum as it applied to that battery analysis. 

I have FINALLY had a written reply to my actual sum - and I've also FINALLY understood that math error.  Abject apologies everyone.  I see now what I did wrong was to multiply my product by 60 minutes - once too often. It just goes to show what I prize idiot I am.  Actually I know this has irritated the hell out of some of you.  But I was so certain I was right.  And indeed I WAS right in principle.  Just not so much in fact.  In fact - I was out by a whopping factor of 60.  Why didn't any of you explain this?  Surely it was OBVIOUS where I was going wrong?

Anyway eatenbyagrue.  You're math is considerably better than my own.  Everyone's is.  And guys, readers everyone - abject apologies for being quite that pig headed.  I really thought that TK was - rather typically - misleading you all.  But when it comes to this extraordinary example of my mathematical ineptitude - then actually he was spot on.  But I'm also reasonably sure that he's delighted with this error of mine.  He's taken such good advantage of it.

It may seem somewhat irreverent but I've been greatly amused.  A nice way to start the day.  But I know that there are possibly those who view this as all as a serious attempt to mislead you.  It's not.  Trust me on this. Just an example of my really, really bad aptitude for math.  You'll be pleased to know that our paper was NEVER reliant on my own math input.  I leave that to my collaborators.  And that battery claim was entirely my own nonsense.  I'm rather ashamed that I was so insistent on being correct.  I was far from it.

Anyway.  I was indeed WRONG.  PROFOUNDLY SO.  I do apologise to all of you who, like me, were then subjected to the occasional reminder of this by TK. It made his complaints somewhat TEDIOUSLY repetitive.  And I'm sure that's not about to change.  LOL. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ACTUALLY - the person I REALLY need to apologise to is our Poynty.  You certainly alerted me to this.  And I think I may have ridden rough shod over your objections.  I'm sorry Poynty Point.  Indeed I am.  I did not do good there.  Not at all.      But you're that much of a gentleman that you DID NOT exploit this.  WELL DONE INDEED.  I'm learning ever greater respect for you.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well, when the electrons hit the fan everybody psych yourself up for about a week's worth of profuse apologies and digital sniffles and tears from Rosie Posie.  There was an incident like that about two years ago, I think it had to do with whether or not there was a diode in the original circuit.

Rosie will swoon when the truth comes out and the tears will flow and flow in a giant burst of under unity in all it's glory.  You will all be smothered in apologies and apologies and apologies and then we can all collectively mourn the end of the era of delicious oscillations.

Next stop Sterling Allen!  lol

Golly MileHigh.  In your dreams.  But nice to see you waxing poetic. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose..eo

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now guys,

On a more serious note.  I need to disabuse you of the 'emphasis' that TK is trying to apply to our demonstration.  The entire purpose of that demonstration was to alert EXPERTS to the evidence of a negative wattage computed over a circuit - which negative wattage is anomalous.  Historically there has NEVER been that computation allowed through conventional measurement protocols.  Factors greater than a co-efficient of 1 have been argued.  Even demonstrated.  And in certain heat pumps - even accepted.  But not a negative wattage.  Because that cannot be explained without the evidence of an alternate energy supply source.

But our claim was NEVER related to battery efficiencies.  That's yet to be proved.  And, with luck, and if TK could resist this clamorous need for attention - then hopefully we can progress to that test.  I ask you to review his earlier attempt at a replication - that DOMINATED whole chapters of this thread.  There is absolutely NO similarity between what he shows and what we show.  I think he's given up trying to replicate this because he quite simply hasn't got the experimental aptitudes.  He could never even manage that oscillation which was our first early evidence of this.  And he most certainly hasn't got even close to showing either the oscillation or its significance on this new generation of that waveform.  Frankly, it's my opinion that he hasn't even got the intellectual wherewith all to understand it.  Else he's trying a rather poor exercise in diminishing this.  He needs to lay off and let me and Poynty argue this without distractions.  Clearly he has not got the competence.  I'd be more inclined to believe he's 'on topic' if I could see an appropriate experimental replication.  Short of this it's just way too much bombast and way too much posing in an effort to prevent that demonstration from taking place.  Or to diminish its significance when we do. 

I'm trying to alert you all to our explanation for this oscillation and at least have that much understood.  Because that is most certainly an intrinsic part of the claim and of the planned demonstration.  And he's trying very hard to keep me from doing this. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
by the way (btw) it seems that he is now dominating more than 8 tenths of each page.  And this is meant to be my thread.  Clearly he's hungry for attention.  It is my opinion - in fact I'd put a small wager on it -  that, like Hitler, TK not only sports a moustache but he's rather short of stature.  Actually I think that's also like Mussolini.  Lots of precedents.  They tend to moralise, somewhat inappropriately.  And they REALLY need attention.  If TK had his own thread - then no-one would read it.  And he dare not take that risk.  Because historically that's what happened.  So.  He's joined this thread and trying very hard to take it over.  As ever, PLEASE apply your scroll function.  Liberally.  All that noise.  And NONE OF IT related to our claim. 
R