Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - with respect - I get it.  Your decision to ignore the battery recharge is possibly valid.  I said as much.  My counter argument is this.  How would you refute returning energy if it was not returned to a battery but to a utility supply source?  Assume an ac supply source - and then accommodate the 'spike' being returned.  Your watt meter would factor it in.  Now?  What does mainstream say?  That they 'dont like the shape of the waveform?'  That's correctible.  What is unarguable is the theoretical potential to return energy. 

And, like I say, ignore the recharge potential of the spike at your peril.  It appears to give a draw down rate that is more efficient than a control run concurrently and run until the control is flat.  And the control battery is depleted long before the experimental battery.  So.  As the Americans say - 'go figger'.

Rosemary,

Your control battery depleting before the experimental battery is quite likely because of the effect that the inductive circuit is having on the battery. A pulsing inductive circuit can cause the battery internal resistance to lower, which results in the terminal voltage rising, giving the impression that the battery is either charging, staying constant or reducing very slowly compared with the control battery. The true power taken from the battery cannot therefore be determined from the terminal voltage changes, unless this is monitored over the full discharge curve of the battery, down to the manufacturers fully discharged voltage level and this is not really a practical proposition with your setup where heat output would also need to be monitored accurately over the same period of time. Added to that, this would still not be an acceptable procedure to validate your claim of overunity.

I have seen what many people would consider OU over considerable periods of time, where my battery terminal voltage continued to climb under quite heavy loads. However, in all cases the voltage eventually came crashing down with a net under unity result in terms of the ratio of energy in to out.

The batteries must go if you have any chance of convincing the academic world!

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The batteries must go if you have any chance of convincing the academic world!

Hoppy

Golly Hoppy.  Yet again.  We do not need to do controls.  But we need to factor in the math as per classical requirement.  This is exhausting.  The way to measure the energy delivered is across the shunt on the source with DC coupling.  If it were from an AC supply source - it would necessitate the same procedure.  THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT TO.  In other words - ignore whatever you like - but the academics themselves have stipulated the required protocols here.

If you are denying us the measurements and denying us the evidence of gains on battery duration - then you are also denying us any means to prove the claim.  I take it that this is not what you're trying to do.   

And there are those academics who indeed prefer the evidence to be on battery duration as added proof.  But I grant you - the majority will not take battery duration as proof of anything. 

Hope I've now explained where we stand on this.

[mscoffman]

Rosemary,

Your control battery depleting before the experimental battery is quite likely because of the effect that the inductive circuit is having on the battery. A pulsing inductive circuit can cause the battery internal resistance to lower, which results in the terminal voltage rising, giving the impression that the battery is either charging, staying constant or reducing very slowly compared with the control battery. The true power taken from the battery cannot therefore be determined from the terminal voltage changes, unless this is monitored over the full discharge curve of the battery, down to the manufacturers fully discharged voltage level and this is not really a practical proposition with your setup where heat output would also need to be monitored accurately over the same period of time. Added to that, this would still not be an acceptable procedure to validate your claim of overunity.

I have seen what many people would consider OU over considerable periods of time, where my battery terminal voltage continued to climb under quite heavy loads. However, in all cases the voltage eventually came crashing down with a net under unity result in terms of the ratio of energy in to out.

The batteries must go if you have any chance of convincing the academic world!

Hoppy

I disagree that "batteries must go". But First you will need
"perpetual motion" device which implies COP=1 or greater

Then you have the unit charge a battery...use an standard
auto battery charger if you want. But the have a microcontroller
switch in a "user load resistor" (prefer a LED bulb, do not use an
incandescent bulb) into battery dcreasing it from vmax to vmin.
The microcontroller turns the user load resistor off when vmin is reached.
Then have the microcontroller keep track of how many watt-seconds
total were pulled from the battery via user load resistor.

Then show that the the number of watt-seconds dissipated
by the load is greater than the watt-seconds that could be stored in the
battery. Then show ten times the number of watt-seconds in the
battery. then show one hundered time it...ect. Thats overunity,
but you will have to have perpetual motion first.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[poynt99]

I think what Hoppy is saying is that the tests should be performed with a DC lab supply and the circuit tested for power in vs. power (heat) out.

The effects and influence on battery stamina (if they truly exist aside from de-sulfation effects) should be dealt with by a separate test all together.

.99

[Hoppy]

Golly Hoppy.  Yet again.  We do not need to do controls.  But we need to factor in the math as per classical requirement.  This is exhausting.  The way to measure the energy delivered is across the shunt on the source with DC coupling.  If it were from an AC supply source - it would necessitate the same procedure.  THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT TO.  In other words - ignore whatever you like - but the academics themselves have stipulated the required protocols here.

If you are denying us the measurements and denying us the evidence of gains on battery duration - then you are also denying us any means to prove the claim.  I take it that this is not what you're trying to do.   

And there are those academics who indeed prefer the evidence to be on battery duration as added proof.  But I grant you - the majority will not take battery duration as proof of anything. 

Hope I've now explained where we stand on this.

Rosemary,

I'm not trying to deny you anything, just highlighting that using batteries is futile as a means to validate your claim. I would like to ask you a loaded question: What is your understanding of COP17 and do you expect that your circuit should self-run electrically from the 'spikes' returned from the battery and if so why and if not why not?

Hoppy