another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[SeaMonkey]

Tinsel Koala,

Your circuit board layout with the parallel
connected MOSFETs (widely spaced with
long parallel leads) is known to be highly
susceptible to "spurious oscillation" or
"parasitic oscillation."  This is especially
true when the MOSFETs are pulse driven
with rapid rise and fall times.

If you were to clean up the layout and take
the standard recommended precautions to
minimize those potential problems it is very likely
that circuit stability and your waveforms would be
somewhat different.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I'm afraid I've not bothered to read your post as I suspect you're punting some physics that is now outdated by our experimental evidence.  But for the record - I intend having that protocol evaluated by some experts in power engineering.  And I will, most assuredly, rest on their advices.  Unless - of course - you yourself are an expert in power engineering.  In which case you too must disclose your full name and your accreditation.

I am sure that you have read the posting.  It's going to be quite a sight to see when it's proved that your experimental evidence is junk.  Next time you take a shower where the shower has one of those pulsing showerheads think of your fantastical circuit because that's what it's doing.

Your proposition  is trapped in an oxymoron relative to the battery draw-down test.  If you claim 'COP infinity' and that the batteries are supposedly recharging, and if your setup draws down the batteries so they last 50% longer than the control, then is that 'victory?'

How can it be a 'victory' if you claim that the batteries never discharge but you run a test where the batteries actually do discharge?

Not that something nonsensical or contradictory or simply ridiculous ever stopped you before.

Your DSO tests on your pulsing shower-head circuit are a prime example of 'garbage-in garbage-out' as has been said many times before.  I seriously hope that you will not have mental health problems when this all comes crashing down.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - was a bit tardy but have now sent a personal message to Glen Lettenmaier detailing a service address.  I'll let you know if papers are served and what it is that he's claiming.

Let's wait and see.  Frankly I'm delighted at his proposed action.  For reasons that I've explained.  It's possible that there may be some cause to counter sue - but I'm not really concerned either way.  I just want that opportunity to defend this matter in Court where I'll be required to produce some experimental evidence.     How great would that be?  And all those experts required to comment.  Can't wait. To defend what's alleged to be indefensible.  What fun.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

See the following proposed test model. Graphic is attached.

TEST MODEL V01

B1-B6 are the same part number battery.

RL1 and RL2 are the same part number element.

RL1 and RL2 value is determined by desired dissipation. For eg. if 50W dissipation is desired, then RL1=RL2=25.92 Ohms.

With the determined load element value, RL1 temp is measured. (Control temp).

RAT circuit is adjusted to produce same measured temp in RL2 as measured in RL1.

RL1 and RL2 are either submersed in liquid, or  measured with 3 temp probes each to average out hot or cold spots on the elements. The 3 probe temps are averaged.

Temp and battery V readings  are recorded every 30 minutes. (or chart recorded)

First run is as shown.

Second run is with B1-B3 swapped with B4-B6, and with RL1 swapped with RL2.

In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.

[poynt99]

In order for the RAT experimental apparatus to be considered the successful victor in this contest, it must outlast the Control by a minimum of 50% more time. This baseline "time" is determined by when the Control batteries reach 10.5V each.

Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.