another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

second installment.

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**.

Not actually.  IF I am using a two channel oscilloscope and IF I did not place the probes as you have indicated - then I WOULD NOT be able to read any potential difference at all. 

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

Not actually.  The voltage across the battery is represented as a POSITIVE VALUE.  Certainly on every single voltmeter and oscilloscope that I have EVER used.  Regardless as to whether the source supply comprises anions or cations - lead acids or alkaline.
 

So the "V" used to compute P_VBAT is a "-V".

Not actually.  The 'V' used to compute P_VBAT IS ALWAYS "+V".  Unless you also use rather exotic oscilloscope probes?  Perhaps that's the source of your confusions?  I've LOVE to find a battery that shows me a NEGATIVE voltage.  Never seen it.  NO SUCH ANIMAL. 

2nd break

[Rosemary Ainslie]

3rd installment

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".

Not actually.  The direction of current flow will be positive if the battery voltage is positive.  And correspondingly the direction of current flow will be negative if the battery voltage is negative.  NEVER can any supply deliver a current flow in anti phase to it's polarity.  JUST NOT POSSIBLE.  And convention has determined that the battery is REPRESENTED as a positive charge.

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

Not actually.  We've already covered this.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE - USING STANDARD MEASURING EQUIPMENT - to MEASURE A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE FROM A BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE.

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!)

Not actually.  You are confusing the energy over the load with the energy from the battery.  The one is stored and or dissipated.  The other is delivered.

3rd installment

[Rosemary Ainslie]

4th installment

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.

Not actually.  It's best to assume NOTHING - especially when such indulgences result in this catastrophic destruction of all reason.

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.

Not actually.  Unless you've determined that your battery is first capable of showing a negative potential difference.  NOT POSSIBLE.  IT DEFIES CONVENTION. 

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.

Not actually.  The fact that we computed a negative wattage OVER THE WHOLE CIRCUIT - rather leads one to conclude that we're accessing a second energy supply source.  Self-evidently.  As energy CANNOT simply come out of the blue.

4th break

[Rosemary Ainslie]

5th installment

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.

Not actually.  That nonsense about the polarity of the probes is presented in the rather reckless attempt at sharing your own rather sad confusions.  The polarity of the probes is IRRELEVANT.  It is the direction of current flow in relation to the applied voltage - that is of significance. What we measure is that the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is less than the amount of energy that is stored and then delivered BACK TO THE BATTERY.  Simple really.  But nonetheless amazing.

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.

Not actually.  We factor in the impedance - and it makes not a blind bit of difference to our results.  Not only that but your assessment of the length of those wires is positively ABSURD.  And not only that but we can reduce the connections between the batteries to the BAREST ESSENTIALS and YET get those extraordinary gains.

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.

Not actually.  I've explained this.  There is no such thing in the entire WORLD of science that enables the computation of a negative wattage from a battery supply source.  Not under any conditions AT ALL.  Which is why we are alerting our experts to this anomaly.

** 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.

Nothing wrong with this advice.  INDEED.  NOR DO WE CONSTRUE anything at all.  We are applying CORRECT protocols to the evaluation of power dissipated and delivered.  KINDLY REFER TO OUR PAPER and not YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT OUR PAPER.  Where exactly have we applied any CONVENTIONS THAT ARE NOT ACCORDING TO REQUIRED PROTOCOLS?

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

There you go, Poynty Point,

You managed to schedule 16 ENTIRELY erroneous statements and then attempted to present them as IF THEY ARE FACT.  Which is exactly your preferred modus operandi.  WHO TRAINED YOU?  Because you're really good. 

Guys - Poynty's intentions are to confuse the hell out of any reader here and then through those confusions - pretend to the authority to determine anything at all.  Which is EXACTLY why we're challenging him for that prize money.  Until he takes the trouble to FAULT our own paper and not indulge in this rather adventurous excursion into power analysis according to POYNTY POINT - then we'll NEVER qualify for that prize of his.  Which would be a shame.

I challenge you now Poynty - to REFUTE MY REFUTATIONS?  LOL.  Or better still.  Just FAULT THE MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS APPLIED IN OUR PAPER.  Else, unfortunately - you'll be conceding our claims - BY DEFAULT.

Kindest and best regards
Rosemary