another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - those are the facts.  It would entirely dominate this thread to engage in a discussion of it.  I'm only recording it here as my rights to advise you all of my own position and under some crying need to do something to salvage this history and my reputation along with it.  I am entitled to defend my good name.  It would have been easier for me to make this information available under PM's to Magsy - as he has asked for clarification.  But I wanted no part of 'whispers'.  Therefore have I made my stance public.  As Glen is trying to dominate this thread with his own opinions.  It is as clear as daylight that the man is utterly unprincipled and that he is trying to kill off this thread.  I assure you all.  Those of you who object to his continually posting about the issue from whichever stand that he tries to occupy - that the ONLY way to manage this is to IGNORE his posts.  He is driven to destroy this thread.  He is determined to usurp this technology.  Strangely, he seems to think that his tactics are likely to succeed.  Else why would he do this?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Rosemary, you wrote:

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.

I agree. I have suggested a 2 amp-hour sealed lead acid battery.

What type of battery and amp-hour rating would you be considering for this test?

[poynt99]

There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?     

I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty Point.  This is my proposed test.  I've looked everywhere.  Why are you not commenting?

SO  AGAIN.  Here's the proposed with the omission of the 555 test as we'll be using an ungrounded plug for the function generator.

. We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
. Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Guys, I see that the preferred battery is being discussed.

I will need to talk to some experts about this and possibly even our manufacturers.  My intention is to find those that can reliably generate a strong current flow in line with it's ratings.  When I've found such I'll post details of it here.  My hope is to get these donated again.  It's all in the interests of open source and I'm reasonably satisfied that those batteries will be well advertised.  So.  Hold your horses.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Unless one of you lot can do this for me?  Or in conjunction with me?  Either way.  I think we should look into all options.

Kindest regards,
Rosie