Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Please note the following image, Brian Ahern, physicist with 30 years of laboratory experience.

It is an image of a modern Lithium Polymer battery. You may note that its capacity is given in milliAmp-hours AND Watt-hours.

It is a  nominal 7.4 volt battery. It has a rated capacity of 430 milliAmp-hours, or 0.430 Amp-hours. Right? It's on the label.

And this is also given as 3 Wh, which means 3 Watt-hours. 

We know that a Joule is a Watt-second, so a Watt-hour is just a bunch of Joules, right? The Watt-hour is an ENERGY measure, giving the energy content of the battery.

So how do we get from 0.430 Amp-hours, to 3 Watt-hours?

What is 0.430 Amp-hours x 7.4 Volts?

[TinselKoala]

So now we have two posts by physicist Brian Ahern (with over 30 years of laboratory experience), over a several day period, in which he twice demonstrates that he apparently doesn't know how to calculate the energy content of a battery, given its voltage and amp-hour rating.

And nobody has corrected his figures. 

And the line referring to the battery capacity, formerly simply left incomplete, has now been deleted entirely from the "paper".


Does no one really know what the capacity of those batteries is? Or is the TRUE CAPACITY OF THE BATTERIES something that would call Ainslie's claims into question... therefore it is being deliberately omitted, and outside estimates left uncorrected?

Of course it is easy to calculate the capacity based on the amp-hour rating. What is this rating? Where can it be officially found? Is it 60 amp-hours in fact? Where did this information come from? It could be even higher. But even if it is only 40 amp-hours.... the capacity still is far greater than any of Ainslie's reported tests could have used.

[poynt99]

Before I comment, I'd like to ask for some input from the folks here. Thanks.

Protocols applied to the definitive battery draw down tests

3 To evaluate the applied resistance to the control.

Our schedule has established the wattage dissipated at the element resistor (RL1) empirically - detailed in para 2 above.  The next requirement is to determine the optimised settings from the switch to test.  When these numbers are established at the required level of dissipation, then one need only look to the stabilised temperature over the resistor element.  The applied energy required for this level of dissipation is established within the range of that schedule.  Assuming, for instance that the required temperature is, for instance 105 degrees centigrade tested with the application of 4 batteries measuring plus/minus 49 volts - then the schedule indicates that this, in turn relates to a wattage level of 23.68 watts dissipation at that element.

Therefore - assuming the batteries are in series and they have negligible internal resistance, we can apply the following formula to establish the control settings...

Power = [Voltage(Total)]²/Resistance;

Solving for Resistance according to this and assuming that 4 batteries are required for the control - gives us

R = V²/P
  =  (49.2)²/23.6
  = 2420.64/23.6
  = 102.56 Ohms

Which means that we need to apply a resistance value of 102.56 Ohms to the control to match the battery draw down requirements under standard application conditions.  And this is then compared to the rate of draw down on the batteries applied to the experiment.

Then one need only apply the required resistance level to the control and commence testing both tests simultaneously.  And then, obviously to keep due record of both sets of data until either the test or the control or both - depleted to 10 volts per battery or thereby - indicating a total discharge of battery potential.

I think that covers the salient points.

Again, kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - you need to reference all three paras.  Else you've only got a third of the argument.

Regards,
Rosie

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,3.msg62/topicseen.html#new

[TinselKoala]

Comment?

Well, this proposed protocol is actually more appropriate for testing load heating efficiency than battery capacity. There are major issues with how the temperature-wattage nomograph was obtained, and the use of different loads for the comparison is also problematic. The entire test suffers from the main problem that you don't know how much charge is in either set of batteries to begin with, so you'd have to recharge (Conventionally) each battery and perform the same test, randomizing batteries, several or even many times, to make sure that you've eliminated variance caused by the different batteries and their uneven states of charge. Another comment has to do with the competency and veracity of the experimenters, both of which are sorely lacking.
The test could be done in the manner described, but I think it actually puts the NERD circuit at a disadvantage because there are other elements in the NERD circuit that are also dissipating power, and if only the load temperatures are matched.... (OF COURSE we have identical loads in identical environments so that the temperature nomograms are EXACTLY the same, this is taken for granted) .... if only the load temps are matched, then the NERD circuit will clearly be using more power since it's warming the mosfets, the CVR, etc.


But my main comment has to do with how disgusted I am with this whole affair. Seeing that Ahern, who is alleged to know what he's doing, cannot even calculate the number of Joules in a battery.... and can't even grasp, apparently, that the units in his calculation don't come out correctly..... and seeing the present fiasco over the editing of that scopeshot..... I see that the Ainslie people are already engaging in scientific misconduct, and this should be clear to anyone who knows the full story.

So... now they are in full damage-control mode. The administrator is taking the blame for the altered scopeshot. Curious, isn't it? A "compression artefact" that is like no other, selectively removing only the two most critical items of information on the scopeshot and leaving everything else untouched. And so quickly and easily repaired, too.

OK, fine. Let them start a "corrections" thread and make an announcement that the "error" has been caught, er.. corrected. That's all proper, if a little LATE.  But be sure to LEAVE OUT the part about WHO FOUND THE ERROR and who pointed it out.

Also... be sure to leave out any corrections of Brian Ahern's bad math. Don't bother to inform him of the actual Joule content of the battery pack, or show him how his calculations are in error.

And be sure to remove any reference to the battery capacity from the paper, it's not important at all, is it.

And of course, that embarrassing claim that somehow, 5.9 million Joules was dissipated in 1.6 hours during this "experiment" .... Oh, look... it's not there any more either. Why is that, Ainslie?

So we've gone, in one single day, from the first image below, to the second image below, without any mention at all of the previous 5.9 megaJoule absurdity.

Ainslie, you people are pathetic. It literally makes me ill to see what you are trying to do, and what you have done to the truth. Every time I think I've see the worst of you, you come up with something, like today's edits, that top everything else you've done in terms of mendacity and sheer outrageousness.