another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

So, it is possible that the bias current can be as low as 10-20 ma and still oscillate.  Then depending on Rosemary's FG settings, it is possible the bias current discussed is much lower in some of the tests.  I note only one test in the paper where it was specifically stated that the FG was set to its full negative offset.

PW

Don't forget my data right now is from 830as. They might be easier to turn on than the PG50s and they do have a lower Rdss.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Picowatt

If I am to have any kind of confidence in your impartiality then I need some kind of assurance that this gross disinformation does not actually convince you.

I  think there is some heating of the load in this mode, consistent with your determinations of the current to be expected. What I believe is the following "uncharitable" interpretation, considering the casual attitude towards raw data and accurate reporting shown by the NERD team.
I believe the "five watt" figure comes from the math trace "numbers box" on the LeCroy. She is simply multiplying the raw CVR voltage drop by the battery voltage to obtain the math trace, thinking this gives her an instantaneous power curve. The data box reports the parameters selected for this trace in units of "VV", since that's what whoever set the math up told the scope the probes were used for. With her demonstrated deficiencies in observation and eyesight, it's plausible that she interpreted this VV as W and again took the boxed numbers at face value. In the LeCroys I use, the math user can tell the scope if a probe represents a current value and also THE VALUE OF THE CVR SHUNT, so then the scope's parameters box will display the correct units of "VA" or even "W". If a true current probe is in use, like in my JT demo, the scope autodetects it and displays its values in Amps instead of volts, and the calculation of the power curve will be using the right units. Garbage values in this case, but at least the right units. So... she's reading "VV" as "W" off the math trace parameters box, and not accounting at all for the 0.25 ohm value of the CVR. I think this is the case, but she denies it.

Not only do we detail how we established the heat profiles - carefully recorded in our paper - but there is NOWHERE ON RECORD that I have EVER determined any wattage levels at all from the math trace.  I am tired of answering this.  I shall not do so again.  Please note - if you are not prepared to acknowledge the obvious calumny and misrepresentation applied here - then our readers most CERTAINLY do.

I'm afraid Picowatt - that if you do not address this point openly and honestly - then I'm unfortunately not able to engage in any discussion with you further and I propose that you and TK continue with this discussion about our circuit on his own thread.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys here's the actual situation that I find myself in.  Harti has proposed - in principle to allow me moderation of my own thread - provided only that I do NOT use that thread to publish any test related to the proposed definitive battery draw down test using the function generator.  He claims that any results there will be skewed by the energy put into the system via the signal generator.  I may ONLY test the 555.  The down side of this is

.  It does not give the range of test parameters as applied in our paper.
.  It does not give the same extremes required in the applied duty cycles
.  It does not give the same control over the offset
.  It would not definitively prove the claim in our paper which represents 2 years of hard work.

However - I personally think that his point should be evaluated.  If indeed, the function generator is responsible for putting energy into a system then that would not be desirable and it should - indeed - be evaluated.  Therefore I've proposed that we do a series of tests applying the signal from a 555 switch and the tests, in turn to be evaluated against a control detailed in that definitive battery draw down test.  When these are completed then we should run a corresponding test to evaluate the results when the test is run from a signal generator.  IF indeed there is evidence that the function generator is inputting energy into the system then his point is valid.  IF there is no evidence of any major differences between these two - then we continue to do those definitive draw down tests applied to our circuit apparatus detailed in our paper.

Right now, if I were to impose any new test results from our existing apparatus based on the results from a function generator - then I will be 'banned' and ALL my hard work on this thread and previous threads - deleted.

Frankly I was only encouraging the continuation of this thread with the certain knowledge that the level of flaming would become so extreme and so obvious that their tactics would backfire for want to constraint.  That much is more than evident.  Thank you God.  That and rather thin hope that either picowatt or Poynty or indeed anyone - was indeed going to replicate.  I see now that Picowatt is relying on TK to do his testing and as we all know TK's commitment is to denial.  Which means that they are free to engage in any discussion they please.  But not on my thread.  It's not our work.  It's TK's preferred reference to our work.  Frankly I'd prefer it that TK manage this continuing discussion with Picowatt on TK's own thread.  Poynty's been promising us a replication for some time.  I'm not sure that he's anywhere near ready for this.

Hopefully I'll hear from Stefan soon.  When I do I'll let you know.  Meanwhile Picowatt - I'll wait to see if you actually endorse the rather obscenely incorrect allegations in TK's previous post.  If not then we need to part company.  I do not have the time to engage with anyone who is that obviously partial.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
ADDED
By the way - I can do nothing to stop that discussion on my thread - but I will distance myself from it with the authority of it being entirely based on deliberate misrepresentation.  And it will show us all that picowatt shares TK's partiality.  Which will be a shame.

[TinselKoala]

Note the values listed for the Math trace in the parameters box. (Unfortunately not indexed by my annotation, but clearly visible anyway.)

And listen to the narrator and Rosemary's prompting at this point in the video, as the presenter gestures towards this oscilloscope display.

Rosemary at that point thought that the multiplication of the Current trace and the Battery Voltage trace--- the operation performed by this math trace -- yielded an answer in Watts (Which it would if only done properly). The oscilloscope is multiplying a "current" times a "voltage".... and is displaying the exact "negative Wattage" value that she has often cited, and is displaying the units "VV" which looks very much like W to old tired eyes like mine.... and yet I can see my own wire color codings on my videos perfectly well.

She thinks that she can determine power dissipation wattage by attaching a thermometer directly to a chunk of heating element hanging in the ambience and looking at the temperature, then raising the load to the same temperature using a DC power supply. And of course we all know that she did this delicate measurement accurately. Don't we.

[TinselKoala]

I see that my NERD test preventer is working better than ever today.

We've been discussing tests and data... and then when Ainslie wakes up, she immediately turns on the one person left who is trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with her... just because he talks to me too.
She packs up, threatens to go away, invokes the holy name of the Moderator. Watch out, picowatt.... she will start mentioning lawyers before long, if you keep watching my videos and become corrupted by them.

No real talk of testing, but only more garbage BS about the 555 timer, and still no test schedule.

YOU DON'T NEED the 555 timer, Rosemary, and Stefan will come to realise this as well. JUST DO THE EXACT THING YOU DID IN THE DEMO VIDEO.
Charge a bunch of batteries equally with an ordinary automatic charger. Set some aside, and use some others to heat an external load to 190 degrees C using the high heat, positive going gate drive. Only, go ahead and use your FULL battery pack of 72 volts for it. Or even just the 60 volt pack. Run in that mode for 48 hours and show proof of that; a time-lapse video is acceptable to me. Then perform the DIM BULB test, comparing your "not depleted"  test batteries with some unused ones.

You could have done this test FIVE TIMES since the thread was re-opened. But you won't and can't. However, that's not stopping ME from testing a device, which although it is not a replication (or IS IT?), is identical to your device in every significant way.

Oh... wait... you DO need the 555 timer, because that is the ONLY plausible reason you have for delaying testing. I say duplicate the feat of the video, then test your batteries. But you aren't going to... and can't.... because I am preventing you from doing it.
And if you want to know how...... just look at my YT channel for the latest alt.snakeoil report.



NOTE WELL: It is extremely important to do the HIGH HEAT test with several amps showing on the CVR trace. Why? Because the function generator can easily supply 200 mA to the load like it gets in oscillation heating mode, even without the Ainslie circuit AT ALL.

I am currently looking at my load cell hooked DIRECTLY to my F43, supplying it with negatively offset DC from the FG, indicating 200 mA from the series ammeter, and heating the load, slowly but surely, just as last night.

So... with the inline ammeter in series with the FG and hooked to the circuit normally except for that, I can set the oscillations using gate drive offset to allow 200 mA to flow here. And with the ammeter set in strict series with the battery supply, ditto. And... with JUST the function generator, no TarBaby at all, I can also heat the load at 200mA on the ammeter with power supplied by the function generator. (In this case it's not so much the accuracy of the meter that counts, it's the precision and repeatability of the measurement.)
So the function generator can be allowed, as far as I am concerned, as long as HIGH HEAT mode , positive gate drive pulses, for the test.

If "low heat mode" using 200 mA (from oscs or ? ) must be used, then some means of preventing the FG... OR the 555 timer circuit ... from providing power to the load must also be used.