another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

My dear Tinsel Koala

If indeed I referenced the display as representative of 5 or thereby watts - then I'd have rather defeated our own claim.  Because if the the scope is telling us that the battery is delivering 5 watts and I am saying that the heat on the load resistor is dissipating 5 watts - then - what the hell?  But I do appreciate how urgently you need to deny this.  I am FLATTERED at the level of your urgency. 

Rosie Pose 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

No TK.  Not actually.  I've been advised that should I presume to report on any further tests at all related to our circuit and using a function generator - then I will be banned - and all my threads deleted.  So.  It's not your permission that I'm seeking - and I'm not sure you have that much authority on this forum.  It seems that Harti does not FOLLOW YOUR INSTRUCTIONS.

Kindest again,
Rosie Pose
Added
And may I add that we've discussed this at length.  I think it is long overdue that we revisit various claims that have been repeatedly refuted by yourself and Glen Lettenmaier - and that all prior claims be more thoroughly evaluated - and this time with the real benefit of impartial academic hands on advices and, hopefully, engagement.

Again - and ever,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

There has never been anyone who has said so little while talking so much, as you, Rosie poser.

Now it is Stefan and his requirements that are preventing you from testing.

Meanwhile, at least Somebody is testing Something, and I am quite sure that YOU won't be testing anything anytime soon.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

There has never been anyone who has said so little while talking so much, as you, Rosie poser.

Now it is Stefan and his requirements that are preventing you from testing.

Meanwhile, at least Somebody is testing Something, and I am quite sure that YOU won't be testing anything anytime soon.

You haven't acknowledged that obvious error TK?  The one where you claimed that I had 20 20 vision and could read the value off the scope trace to confuse it with the heat dissipated at the load.  And indeed.  It is Stefan's requirements that we test this without the function generator.  I'm rather pleased.  It will give us AMPLE opportunity to refute those complicated bases of your earlier denials.  And Glen Lettenmaier's for that matter.  And this time we'll be sure to film everything - copiously.  And we'll use good lighting - as  departure from those bench marks that you've set.  And INDEED.  Subject to Harti's permission - it should take plus/minus a fortnight to get our first tests completed.

How nice would that be?  You'll no longer to able to rely on that rather tired schedule of denials that you require.  The only problem then is who is then going to pay you for your own running 'side by side' commentary that I anticipate?  Or will that by your gratis contribution? To the public good?

ever
Rosie Posie

Added
And it is indeed a pleasure to get the occasional word in - between the multiple posts that you manage in order to dominate this thread.  My concern is that you're neglecting your own.  AND you're neglecting that cold fusion number.  You need to pull finger.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

The function generator is not putting energy into the batteries in negative oscillation mode.  All that it is doing is assisting the set of batteries while they discharge.  The batteries will indeed die if you run in negative oscillation mode for long enough.

Are you interested in the high heat mode?  Do you think that you are "COP infinity" in that mode?  In that mode as long as you keep the switching frequency of the function generator low, say 100 Hz or less, then the energy put into the system by the function generator will be negligible.  In this mode your batteries will die much more quickly.

So there is no rational reason to not use the function generator and Stefan is wrong.

Alternatively, if you want to use a 555 timer, I am going to presume that your preferred mode to run in is negative oscillation mode.  Then all that you have to do is get another 12-volt battery to power the 555 timer.  With the new battery power the timer so that it runs on ground and -12 volts relative to your setup.  You need a 50 ohm resistor in series with the 555 timer output, and then you will be emulating the function generator.

If you want to make your life easier, add a 12-volt battery to the system to give you  -12 volts like stated above, and connect a 50-ohm resistor between -12 volts and the Q1 gate.  Then the setup will run continuously in negative oscillation mode.

Just forget about the "two academics" nonsense Rosemary, you are never going to get two professors to take you seriously.  If you want to get their attention you have to present your own draw-down data to them first.

Also, not knowing the state of charge of your batteries has always been an Achilees' Heel in your testing.  You have to charge your batteries and first of all do a dim bulb test on all of them.  Then charge your batteries and repeat the process.  Make sure all of the batteries are approximately the same.

Do you get this?  BEFORE you do your draw-down test you should know how long your batteries are expected to run for the dim light bulb test.  Not knowing this information before you start the testing is unacceptable.  You have to start working with good solid and reliable information.  If you do this then you will also know approximately how much energy is stored in the batteries, which is very important.

Then if I was in your shoes, I would then just add an extra battery and the 50-ohm resistor as was explained above and let the whole setup run for however long is necessary in negative offset oscillation mode.  Forget the 555 timer and the function generator, you simply don't need them.  Way back in this thread is was explained to you that the function generator serves no real purpose in your setup.

So, for how long do you run this test?  One more time you have to use you wits and make some intelligent decisions.  Measure the temperature of your load resistor when the setup is running for a short test.  Do a thermal profiling of he load resistor if you have to.  Estimate the power dissipation being burned off in the load resistor from the thermal profiling.

Now here comes the hard part so ask for help if you need to: Calculate how long you have to run the setup to burn off 80% of the energy stored in the batteries.  Of course we know that you believe that the batteries will remain topped-off during this test because you allege that your setup is actually recharging the batteries.

So, supposing that you have to run the setup for 10 days to burn off 80% of the energy stored in the batteries.  Fine, run the test for 10 days and then to the dim light bulb test.

Time for ACTION Rosemary and time for you to get proactive.  This forum itself is an addiction.  Stop arguing about your setup and actually do something that is real.

MileHigh