@ evolvingape, et al,

The problem with the new claim of exceeding a battery's amp hour rating is that a battery's amp hour rating is quite variable.

Typically, on a battery as large as 60 AHr, the rating is derived at a 20 hour discharge rate.  That means that for a 60 AHr battery, it will power a load of 3 amps for 20 hours (from whatever is specified as full charge to its full discharge voltage which is typically 10.6V for a 12 lead acid).  If the load is increased above 3 amps, the AHr rating will typically be less than that acheived at the 20 hour rate.  If the load is less than 3 amps, the AHr rating will typically be greater than the 20 Hr rate.  Pulsing the load will also typically yield a higher AHr rating than the equivalent steady state average current.

The manufacturer has to be consulted to see what discharge rate was used to determine the advertised AHr rating and also to see if other discharge rate curves/ratings are available.  Also, it is not reasonable to assume that if several 60AHr batteries are procured and tested that all will be exactly 60AHr, so any available data from the manufacturer regarding the tolerance on the AHr rating would also be informative.

When the claim was COP=infinity, that would have been easy to prove/disprove with a long duration battery rundown test.  If the battery runs down, COP=infinity is disproved.

Now that the claim has changed to merely exceeding a battery's amp hour rating, proving or disproving this will be near impossible.  Whatever load profile is applied to the battery to acheive a given AHr rating is the battery's AHr rating for that particular load profile.

If a pulsed or non-linear load is applied that averages out to 3 amps but causes the 60AHr battery to last for the equivalent of 120AHr, that only proves that the battery is capable of delivering 120AHr when discharged with that load profile.

It would seem nearly impossible to prove/disprove this new claim.  We will have to wait and see how large the claimed increase in AHr rating is in the new tests that are to be performed, but what would one use as a load profile to compare the new numbers to? 

PW

   

PW:

Very astute comments about the battery issue.  Of course Rosemary is reading your comments also but chances are she will ignore them.  I believe the issues you raised are too complex for Rosemary to deal with herself and it's undetermined if she will get someone to help her.  Assuming that she does some testing it will be interesting to see what kind of data she generates. 

Data based on battery voltages alone is junk data.

The two-farad cap test would have been more dramatic with a multimeter monitoring the cap voltage in real time.  In case anybody has any doubts, you can clearly see that the capacitor is discharging while it powers the Altoids box based on the changes in the observed waveforms on the oscilloscope.  Rosemary, that was the kiss of death for your proposition.

MileHigh

PW,

I completely agree with you. We have been here before but I am happy to go over the issues again.

Here are some links that will help the people who do not know what we are talking about:

http://www.engineersedge.com/battery/capacity_battery_ratings.htm

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/what_is_the_c_rate

http://www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/EV_BatteryPhysics.html

A battery will have a recommended C rating by the manufacturer. This will determine the charge or discharge energy over time (/ or per if you prefer) that the battery can handle. Not complying with these ratings could damage your battery's ability to store or deliver charge.

I agree that the prior claim of COP=infinity would be easy to prove or disprove with a continuous battery draw down test. I think that is the reason why that claim is no longer being made.

The issue of exceeding a battery's rated capacity to me is not an issue. It is a claim based on three things. The amount of energy originally stored in the battery at time zero (fully charged), and the rate at which energy is expended, which means how much energy over what time period. A battery that discharges 2 Amps in 1 hour has expended the same amount of energy as a battery that discharges 1 Amp per hour for 2 hours, in both cases the battery has used the same amount of total energy.

The problems will start when the claim is made based upon only a single component of the equation, for example time alone, or similarly Amps drawn alone. However, the battery can only contain a certain amount of energy to start with, and no more, so it will be simple to calculate the total amount of energy expended in a duration test if you know the discharge rate, ie. how many watts for how long. The rate must remain constant though, no 'tuning' to rig the results.

The issue of a control load profile is actually an issue. The only way to test this is to use a minimum of three different control load profiles, which discharge the battery at different C ratings, this will give you an idea of the TOTAL ENERGY the battery contains. Direct DC loads will be the most reliable for this purpose.

If you base your test on the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying, and not on either time or Amps delivered in isolation, a reasonable indication of performance should be gained, with respect to the control loads.

Not quite as simple as a definitive COP=infinity test I agree, but we were never going to get that test so the shifting of the goal posts to a harder to (dis)prove claim is not at all a surprise.   

We have of course determined here in these experiments that what .99 and humbugger were saying more than a year ago is true: that when the oscillations are happening with the negative gate signal, then whatever is providing that bias voltage and current is a power source that is in series with the main battery and the load, and if the circuit is wired as shown in the NERD video demo, this part of the current bypasses the CVR altogether. Even if the circuit is wired "properly" as in the current set of schematics, the bias source is still supplying power. Ainslie, however, continues to disregard that fact, as she still denies that the FG can "pass current" and supply power of its own to the circuit, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. As usual. But this will confound any battery capacity testing they do, if they do not take it into account.
It is going to be interesting to watch the NERDs and the sycophants repeating my experimental work and discovering for themselves what we have discovered in this thread: experimental confirmation of what the sims told us more than a year ago.

Quote from: evolvingape on June 14, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
PW,

I completely agree with you. We have been here before but I am happy to go over the issues again.

Here are some links that will help the people who do not know what we are talking about:

http://www.engineersedge.com/battery/capacity_battery_ratings.htm

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/what_is_the_c_rate

http://www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/EV_BatteryPhysics.html

A battery will have a recommended C rating by the manufacturer. This will determine the charge or discharge energy over time (/ or per if you prefer) that the battery can handle. Not complying with these ratings could damage your battery's ability to store or deliver charge.

I agree that the prior claim of COP=infinity would be easy to prove or disprove with a continuous battery draw down test. I think that is the reason why that claim is no longer being made.

The issue of exceeding a battery's rated capacity to me is not an issue. It is a claim based on three things. The amount of energy originally stored in the battery at time zero (fully charged), and the rate at which energy is expended, which means how much energy over what time period. A battery that discharges 2 Amps in 1 hour has expended the same amount of energy as a battery that discharges 1 Amp per hour for 2 hours, in both cases the battery has used the same amount of total energy.

The problems will start when the claim is made based upon only a single component of the equation, for example time alone, or similarly Amps drawn alone. However, the battery can only contain a certain amount of energy to start with, and no more, so it will be simple to calculate the total amount of energy expended in a duration test if you know the discharge rate, ie. how many watts for how long. The rate must remain constant though, no 'tuning' to rig the results.

The issue of a control load profile is actually an issue. The only way to test this is to use a minimum of three different control load profiles, which discharge the battery at different C ratings, this will give you an idea of the TOTAL ENERGY the battery contains. Direct DC loads will be the most reliable for this purpose.

If you base your test on the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying, and not on either time or Amps delivered in isolation, a reasonable indication of performance should be gained, with respect to the control loads.

Not quite as simple as a definitive COP=infinity test I agree, but we were never going to get that test so the shifting of the goal posts to a harder to (dis)prove claim is not at all a surprise.

Evolvingape,

Thanks for the links. 

It is exactly "the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying" that is the issue.  Different load profiles yield different AHr ratings or capacities.

If the increase in AHr rating demonstrated in the new tests is only minimal, any anomalous action will be hard to prove/disprove.  However, possibly we will be talking about orders of magnitude, which would at the least, be interesting.  Even then, the acheived AHr rating would best be compared to a similar load profile minus a control.  For example, if 4 amps is drawn at a 10% duty cycle and oscillations made in between that 4 amp draw, the acheived AHr rating could be compared to a load profile that only applies the 4 amp/10% load.

We will just have to wait and see what any new tests are claimed to acheive.

PW