another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Poynty I'm submitting my proposed test protocols to some academics between tomorrow and Friday.  I'll let you know their advices - and whether there's any level they're prepared to engage in - prior to publication.  Please note.  I am ONLY prepared to vary the protocols on their advices.  I will absolutely not defer to anyone else's.  Unless of course there are accredited power engineering experts here on our forum.  In which case I'd need to know your identities and accreditation. 

Which I think is fair.  It seems there are endless opinions - but no experts.  Sadly needed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

Indeed, and I'll need to know "your identities and accreditation" as well. It's only fair, right?

[poynt99]

Your proposed protocol as stated is a test to determine whether the RAT circuit will outperform the control circuit by 50%, while dissipating the same energy value at the load, and nothing more.

Indeed.

A test of the claim, which is COP = infinity must be a continual non interrupted run of the RAT circuit.

Please provide a quote or link from either myself or Rosemary that clearly indicates that the claim being tested with this battery draw down contest is for COP infinity?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

Indeed, and I'll need to know "your identities and accreditation" as well. It's only fair, right?

Absolutely.  That's what I'm negotiating for.  I'm hoping to find a couple of experts who are prepared to evaluate the protocols - firstly - and then associate with the actual test.  Not sure how easy it will be to manage this Poynty.  But I'm going to give it my best shot.  I don't think there will be any objections to evaluating the test requirements.  Not sure.  But I think that's doable.  God knows they'll be rather reluctant to be associated with this forum.  But who knows?  Perhaps there are those few who understand what gives.  If not?  Then I'm not sure what to do.  Just wait for publication?

You must remember that we've run these tests exactly as outlined for BP.  And that engineer was most certainly an expert.  Unfortunately the guy who led this is no longer here.

Regards,
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

You mean you are trying to find some "experts" who AGREE WITH YOU and your crazy "math". And you are finding it very hard, aren't you.

Why don't you just go down to your local university and go into the graduate commons pub. There will be PLENTY of young eager students in there who will, at first, listen to you politely.... and then..... find that they suddenly have a class to go to, or a hot date.... ANYTHING to avoid having to deal with you.

You really impressed Professor Kahn at CPUT, didn't you. Maybe HE'd like to review and endorse your math and conclusions.

If YOU can't find real academic experts.... I certainly can. None that are likely to agree with your math and other conceptual errors, though.


Meanwhile... you had better hurry up and start testing. Right now, on the workbench behind me, I have a matched load running inside an insulated container of mineral oil, heating it up with MY "ains-LIE" circuit, the one I posted the pics of yesterday. I started at 1605 and a temperature of 23.1 degrees C. Using the waveform that you "think" isn't caused by the same thing yours is...... it's now 1708, about time to stop the test, and the temperature  is 67.8 degrees C. I'm heating up about 120 ml of mineral oil, specific heat 1.67 (that is, it takes 1.67 Joules to raise the temperature of one gram by one degree C).
So..... over the sixtythree minutes of the demonstrations, I have raised the oil by (67.8 - 23.1) = 44.7 degrees C. Multiply that times 120 grams (roughly) and then by 1.67, to arrive at about 8958 somethings, which I then FOLLOWING ROSEMARY"S EXAMPLE multiply by (63 x 60) seconds, to arrive at a staggering 33 860 786.4 "Joules". My batteries, as you know, are 12 volt 5 A-H and I've got three of them. So they contain (12 x 5 x 3 x 60 x 60) Joules altogether, or 648 000 Joules. IN THIS ONE TEST ALONE, I have far exceeded the battery's capacity ACCORDING TO THE SAME MATH ROSEMARY USES.
And guess what... that's right. On a no-load test the battery pack voltage is still over 37 volts -- in other words, BY ROSEMARY'S LOGIC, still fully charged.

Therefore, by the same reasoning, math and evidence that Rosemary cites, I have running RIGHT NOW on the bench behind me, a device that qualifies for the OverUnity Prize... and I've shown it FIRST in this thread.




ETA: by the time I finished writing this it's 1725 and the oil temperature is 74.2 degrees C... and still climbing slowly.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test. 

If she can do it that way, I demand the right to do it that way too... and therefore MY CIRCUIT actually outperforms her measly 25.6 megaJoules, since I calculated 33.8 megaJoules for my test.

[evolvingape]

Indeed.
Please provide a quote or link from either myself or Rosemary that clearly indicates that the claim being tested with this battery draw down contest is for COP infinity?

Poynt99,

Rosemary's claim is COP = infinity, not COP = 1.5, a stopped test cannot produce results above COP = 1.5, a continuous test will produce results until infinity or the RAT circuit uses up all the juice.

If you are not testing the claim of COP = infinity, what are you testing ?

RM