another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well then. Which part isn't true?

Will your circuit run WITHOUT A BATTERY and heat up water? No? So a battery IS required for your circuit, isn't it, even though you didn't MEASURE any draw from it....

I wonder what the explanation for that is. No current from the battery, but the battery is required to be in the circuit for the circuit to work.

So which part of my statement is a lie? The battery, or the conclusion that Mags must agree with you?

AT LAST.  You need only refer to our second paper.  The entire explanation is there.  And that paper is copied on my blogspot.  Check it out TK.  Then you'll possibly understand what our actual claim is.   Not what you ASSUME our claim is.

Golly guys.  The man assumes he has the right to comment when he doesn't even know what he's commenting about.  It reminds me of his insistence in those posts - before it was locked - that our claim had already been debunked.  Then only did he realise he had never even done our test.  The man's been accessed for damage control.  But I'm not sure they've found the right man yet.  I think Poynty's the best option to carry this counter argument.  And that because he understand the implications of all this where the rest of them have no clue.

That's just a word of advice to our troll masters - wherever they are.

Rosie Pose,
AKA AS Rosemary, Rosie, Rose, Rosie Rose, and on an on and on,
I'm suffering from multi identity confusions. 

[MileHigh]

Posting 1 of 2.  ******  Capacitor Test  *******

Just for the heck of it, I will repost a very fast test that allows you to make an approximate measurement of the power consumption of Rosemary's circuit.

Note that Rosemary doesn't understand how capacitors work and dismissed my proposed test as one that would measure capacitor leakage.  She can't seem to wrap her brain around the fact that the capacitor is emulating one of her series batteries, and as the capacitor goes down in voltage while the circuit runs, that's definitive proof that the capacitor is outputting current into the load.  So if the capacitor is outputting current into the load, then the battery bank is also outputting current into the load.  That is proof that the bank of batteries would go flat if they ran her circuit for a long time.

This test would bust Rosie in 10 seconds flat and it would be game over.  I think that secretly she is petrified of this test:

>>>>>>>

Well I'll take one more crack at this.  The rationale for doing this is that Rosemary doesn't understand capacitors, and therefore can't understand how a capacitor could prove or disprove that her circuit is consuming energy.

We will do this with a concrete real-world example but make up some timings for illustrative purposes.

Rosemary, what we want to do is temporarily substitute one of your six batteries in series for a large capacitor.  I think that a 25-volt 25,000 uF electrolytic capacitor is about the size of a 350 ml coke can.  So lets put four of these in parallel to make a 100,000 uF capacitor.

Here is the procedure:

With the power off, connect the large capacitor across the third battery of the six batteries in series.   Let's assume the cap charges to 12.6 volts and you keep a hand-held multimeter connected to the capacitor measuring the voltage across the cap for the duration of the experiment.  Then simply disconnect one of the leads to the third battery so that you have the large capacitor temporally taking the place of the third battery.  You can say that the large capacitor is emulating the third battery in the series of six batteries.  The circuit will run just fine like this.  Have your scope hooked up so you can see your famous oscillations.

Now, switch the power on and see the oscillations on your scope.  Switch the power off after 10 seconds.  Time it with a stopwatch if you can or use the second hand on a watch.  Check the voltage on the big cap after 10 seconds.  Let's suppose that after 10 seconds that you see the voltage on the big capacitor is now 10.0 volts.  That's the end of the experiment.

Continued in part two.....

[MileHigh]

Posting 2 of 2.  ******  Capacitor Test  *******

So, what just happened?

The answer is as follows:  The big capacitor was emulating one of the batteries.  You can see that the amount of energy in the capacitor went down, it output some energy and that energy went into the circuit, a.k.a.; the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor.

Here is the key point:  The capacitor was just one of six power sources in the chain, the other five were batteries.  If the capacitor output a certain amount of energy over 10 seconds, then you know that the other five batteries also output approximately the same amount of energy over 10 seconds.  You know this because they are all working together in series.

So, how much energy did the capacitor output over 10 seconds:

E = ((0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 12.6^2) - (0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 10.0^2)) = (7.938 - 5.000) = 2.938 Joules.

So, that means, when you factor in all six batteries that's approximately (6 * 2.938) = 17.628 Joules of energy that were transferred into the circuit over 10 seconds.

So, that means that the average power output from the five batteries and the large capacitor while the circuit was running was (17.628/10) = 1.7628 watts.

That also means that the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor together were dissipating dissipating about 1.7628 watts as heat while the circuit was running.

The fact that the voltage on the big capacitor goes down while the circuit is running shows that the circuit is acting conventionally and there is no "COP infnity" taking place.

So Rosemary, the challenge that has been put to you is to measure the power consumption in a different way to back up your claim.  If your claim is true then the capacitor that is acting as the substitute for one of the batteries will not go down in voltage.

I submit to you that this is an easy test to do.  The numbers have even been crunched for you, all that you have to do is punch in your own values.

As far as I am concerned you will be morally bankrupt if you dismiss this proposed alternative test as you have for so many other proposed alternative tests in the past.

The simple fact is you can't cling to your one measurement method done with the DSO as the "absolute truth."  You have now been told literally hundreds of times that you have made measurement errors.

I would be shocked if you actually undertook to get some help and actually do the test as outlined above.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

See "Watt_Def.png" attachment.
See "Joule_Def.png" attachment.

@.99:
She doesn't understand that "PER" means "divided by" in the equations.

She thinks that "1 Joule = 1 Watt PER second" is mathematically the same as saying "1 Watt = 1 Joule PER second." So it's no use highlighting the "W=J/S" or the "J = W x S" definitions in the text... she has no clue what that means. If she can't even immediately tell by inspection that 220 x 20 isn't 2200.... you are doomed from the start.


This is what happens when you don't take algebra in high school, kiddies.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Posting 2 of 2.  ******  Capacitor Test  *******

I would be shocked if you actually undertook to get some help and actually do the test as outlined above.

MileHigh

LOL  MileHigh.  Then far be it from me to 'shock' you.  I've answered this proposal at length.  If you're not going to refer to my counter argument I'll not refer to your argument.  It's a waste of time. 

When were you re-instated?  And why?  Did Harti rope you in as another 'defender of the unity barrier'?  Or did you merely take up temporary residence at OUR.com?  And now you're back?  Delighted to see this.  I just hope you'll manage to keep your comments topical.  And a capacitor is only topical in conjunction with my previous replies.  But well done for filling another page.  Between you, and TK and Glen you've managed to add a good 6 pages or thereby to this thread - in one night.  My guess is that it'll do the job required - which is to take the argument away from any evidence of duplicity by TK and any genuine discussions related to my joule analysis with eatenbyagrue.  We've yet to determine that.  But hopefully between eatenbyagrue and myself.  Not that I'm drawing distinctions here - but he's patently a scholar and a gentleman and I'm inclined to rest on his advices.

Kindest regards,
Rosie