Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Here is a _different_ screenshot, 0325 (not 0235, dyslexic alert). This one shows the oscillation waveforms in detail, using presumably the 60 volt battery stack as the supply.

If the math trace is the instantaneous power curve given by the direct multiplication of the CVR trace and the Battery trace... what is its RMS value? (Don't forget whatever your model allows for the CVR's inductive reactance at 1.5 MHz). The scope can compute the RMS power value if it is asked to.  But the RMS power will not be negative.
Still... what is its value, estimated from this scope trace?

(And here is a "NOTE BENE" that is another result of Ainslie incompetence. The screenshots are saved by the LeCroy as .bmp by default, apparently. The forum software does not allow the upload of .bmp attachments.... so "somebody" has simply changed the extension to .jpg on many of the early scopeshots and uploaded them that way. All the 301.1 KB "jpg" screenshots are really .bmp files that have not really been converted to .jpg. The .jpg conversion results in a much smaller filesize, for one thing. So if you have trouble opening any of her old 301.1 KB "jpg" screenshots, try changing the extension to .bmp and see if your software will open it that way.)

[TinselKoala]

Guys - yet another appeal to Stefan Hartman.  Let's see what comes of this one.   

Regards
Rosemary

My dear Stefan,

There is still an uninterrupted series of utterly incorrect allegations related to the objects of our tests that are fully described in our paper.  Together with this is the continual degradation and misrepresentation of our work.  If you do NOT act against this within the next 24 hours, then I must assume that you endorse this or that it conforms to your preferred editorial bias.

Let me know.

Regards,
Rosemary

Don't forget to remind him that he seems to have been in agreement with "us" at one time, at least. And I find it especially telling that you are appealing to him now, after completely ignoring his specific requests to you at least SEVEN TIMES.

[TinselKoala]

For example in SCRN0325, what do you get when you take the RMS value of the CVR current and multiply it by the RMS battery voltage?
I know that the waveforms are not sinusoidal. 
To get the "average" power in an _arbitrary_ waveform it is done by taking the instantaneous power curve... the math trace.... integrating it to find the total area (the energy in Joules), and dividing this total area by the time of integration.
Is it not?

[MileHigh]

TK:

If the math trace is the instantaneous power curve given by the direct multiplication of the CVR trace and the Battery trace... what is its RMS value?

Note that you already have a "square" factored in when you multiply voltage times current.

So when you look at the power waveform, let's say you could average the positive power and average the negative power as separate entities.  Both of those entities would be equivalent to the RMS positive power and the RMS negative power.

So it could be another pixel counting exercise to determine the average power out from the battery and the average power "returned" to the battery.

The fundamental thing to realize is that the power returned to the battery was was supplied by the battery in the previous microsecond.  Why it apparently measures more energy returned to the battery is something that has to be investigated further.

But the bottom line is all of the "magical returned power" while in negative oscillation mode is nothing more than power supplied by the battery in the first place.  It's nothing to get excited about.  All that it really means is that some of the battery energy is stored temporarily before it gets burned off.

The net flow of current is CLOCKWISE, and the batteries are discharging.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear little TK,  As ever you are ENTIRELY misrepresenting the case.

Don't forget to remind him that he seems to have been in agreement with "us" at one time, at least. And I find it especially telling that you are appealing to him now, after completely ignoring his specific requests to you at least SEVEN TIMES.

There has never been ANY time - EVER - that Harti has supported me, or our work.  In the very early days - you'll recall - when we were still working on the COP>17 claim I enjoyed the rare distinction of being banned from his forum before even joining.  And for those who have been with this saga for long enough - you will note that FuzzyTomCat and MileHigh were variously taken off moderation or invited to rejoin this forum PRECISELY to assist you with your calumny and traducement.  Their skills at this are unequaled except, obviously by your own.  And Harti saw good reason to give you every support he could offer.  Because that is clearly his editorial bias.

And his spurious objections to our results have always been voiced.  He has NEVER supported any of our claims.  And he has done NOTHING but encourage dissention.  He uses arguments that, when 'answered', are ignored.  And so.  Not actually.  Harti has most certainly NOT given us a chance at a fair hearing. Not ever.  Either I am allowed a thread - but that's to be accompanied by you and your team's best flaming efforts.  Or you're allowed free reign to misrepresent to your hearts desire - with no control whatsoever on your slanderous indulgences.  He only allows this excessive 'spin' that you all rely on as you'd otherwise have NO argument.  The question is this?  Why?  If he were really truly - as MileHigh says - that interested in promoting over unity - then I would have thought that he'd try and offer our hard work the chance of a fair hearing.  And fairness is NOT within the scope of your agenda - VERY obviously.

Rosie Pose