MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 11:24:35 PM
You read the definition of a troll and you clearly know that I am not a troll.

Therefore you are you are just making yet another bold-faced lie.  You know that you are doing it and everybody that knows you knows that you are doing it.

We have indeed defined 'troll'.  It's that 'talking head' that not only hides his identity but also defies the forum objectives.  I'm not sure that I qualify.  And I'm entirely satisfied that you do.  Unless, of course, you can show any support of any kind at all against any of the experimental endeavors of any of our members EVER.  Perhaps I've missed something?

Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 11:24:35 PMHow low can you go Rosemary?  Your credibility is zero and you keep scraping away at that zero boundary when you make ridiculous statements in an attempt to go into negative credibility territory.  It just doesn't go any lower than zero.

'negative credibility territory?'  Is that in the same ballpark as 'negative wattage'?  I can't get my head around this value when its applied to 'credibility'.  If anything it means that there's less than no credibility - which makes it a double negative.  Which also then makes it HIGHLY credible because a double negative implies a positive.  Quite apart from which - credibility is boring.  I prefer to deal with real data.  Something that you and yours need 'duck'.  And on the face of it my own credibility is very much on the up and up.  Which is likely to make your disclaimers ever more neurotic.  IF, that is - they can exceed their current levels.  On the face of it - it's unlikely. 

Quote from: MileHigh on June 16, 2012, 11:24:35 PMWe will drop in an observe the fantasy goings on at your forum from time to time.  The capacitor test was the death blow for your proposition.  Your whole proposition is a joke.  If some of the members in your forum are not sycophants then everything is eventually going to blow up!  However, it's clear that you have established your own totalitarian dictatorship over there so there is more likely to be heads being chopped off the moment any thoughtcrime becomes speakcrime.

I'm waiting to see TK's 'continuous voltage' from a capacitor supply source.  He promised us this some few pages back and is now using the fact that his function generator is out of wack - to pretend that he can't run this test.  So sad.      That's an example of the 'spin' required by your own little totalitarian regime of over unity deniers and denials which is actually the hidden agenda of this forum.  Again.  So - so sad.  Unlike you MilesOfHotAir - I LOVE wrestling with good scientific argument.  It's the lack of this that litters this thread.

Regards as ever,
Rosie Pose 

Rosemary:

Yes you clearly have "missed something" as you do your silly dance.  Put your brain in gear and go back and read the definition for the term.  Do not call me a troll.

QuoteI'm waiting to see TK's 'continuous voltage' from a capacitor supply source.

Unless you mean something else he already did the clip where a capacitor powers the Altoids box for several minutes until the capacitor voltage drops too low for it to run the circuit anymore.  Did that one fly by you?

QuoteI LOVE wrestling with good scientific argument.  It's the lack of this that litters this thread.

Right.  More bullshit from Rosie the Bullshitter.  That's a statement coming from a woman who after more than ten years pushing her big free energy proposition still cannot compose more than three sentences about power and energy without making a gross and embarrassing mistake.

It's all a conspiracy Rosie, watch out for the one-armed man.

MileHigh

Quote from: picowatt on June 14, 2012, 10:23:13 PM
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

Quote from: evolvingape on June 15, 2012, 07:33:34 PM
PW, et al,

The manufacturer of the battery will recommend a C rating from which a performance curve can be generated on paper. A suitable load will then allow an experimental comparison to be made generating a theoretical and experimental performance curve, and assessing battery(s) initial  condition.

Substituting appropriate loads and adjusting time component accordingly to comply with C ratings will allow multiple experimental load profiles to be generated. Superimpose all curves onto same graph.

Common denominator for calibration is a fixed amount of energy depleted from the battery, creating a constant, measured at load over time. Adjust time component to comply with C rating profiles to achieve  constant in each case.

Now run NERD or replication, which with a known energy drain can be adjusted by time component to comply with C rating profiles. Superimpose onto graph, related performance via a constant is now possible for all load profiles.

Once a known constant amount of energy has been burnt off in the load, commence dim bulb testing via timed low voltage shut off control for all C rating profiles (including NERD, which has been converted in to a C rating profile via it's known measurable constant, amp draw, and it's user defined variable, time).

Workable or not ?

Quote from: evolvingape on May 24, 2012, 12:12:35 PM
TK, PW,

How about a Dim Bulb Test with an integrated Batt Meter ?

http://www.gorum.ca/batt-cap.html

Based on what has been discussed in the quotes above I propose that the following would be an acceptable “protocol” for testing the total amount of energy the battery is capable of supplying.

The NERD circuit runs in two modes, direct DC and oscillation. Both of these modes can be tested independently until half of the calculated energy has been burned off in the battery. This should give us two load profiles over two different time periods, which both consume the same amount of energy from the battery. The first profile should be approximately 4 amps during DC only mode and then the second profile should be approximately 200 ma during oscillation only mode.

This will give two load profile performance curves that can be superimposed onto the control load profiles experimentally generated to confirm the manufacturers data is accurate, because we all know they always tell the truth about product ratings, don't we ?

We can now address the duty cycle issue correctly raised by picowatt. If the NERD circuit is run at a 10% duty cycle, the DC phase will be on for 10% of the time drawing approximately 4 amps, and the oscillation phase will be on for 90% drawing approximately 200 ma.

The proposed load profiling of both phases independently as outlined above will give two curves at the outer limits of performance, therefore the combined duty cycle profile will fall somewhere between these two curves, and can be shifted left or right on the graph by varying the duty cycle.

When half of the energy has been burned off in the battery from load profiling, a modified dim bulb test can be performed using the circuit in the link above.

Calorimetric load testing must be done properly giving you an accurate assessment of energy burned in the load. To calibrate the battery to C profiles a known load can be used such as a bulb with a known amp draw, no need for calorimetric testing there because it is direct DC, the addition of an inline ammeter will allow easy monitoring of the current flowing.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_6/chpt_2/4.html

The calorimetric testing of the actual NERD circuit is necessary because of the oscillation phase which requires a heating element resistor as the load.

Ideally there would be no isolated direct DC phase at all because the magic is in the oscillation, apparently.

Thoughts ?

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 16, 2012, 11:49:01 PM

(snip a bunch of Ainslie verbiage)
I'm waiting to see TK's 'continuous voltage' from a capacitor supply source.  He promised us this some few pages back and is now using the fact that his function generator is out of wack - to pretend that he can't run this test.  So sad.
(snip more irrelevant garbage)

IN the first place, lying troll idiot...  where did I "promise continuous voltage from a capacitor supply source"? Nowhere, that's where. I said, and demonstrated, that your oscillations do not collapse immediately as your "thesis" requires them to, and that if a capacitor is correctly sized, it can provide energy -- "voltage" if you like -- for circuit operation indistinguishable from battery power, for as long as one likes. Again refuting another of your bogus claims.

And yet again... you are misrepresenting what I've said. Provide a link to what you are talking about, you liar. I have promised, and SHOWN SEVERAL TIMES, without any need for FUNCTION GENERATORS AT ALL, that a capacitor is perfectly able to run the Altoid circuit, producing a STRONG NEGATIVE MEAN POWER, for many minutes at a time, with long periods of "no measureable voltage decrease". I've shown this several times, as I said, and I've even shown Tar Baby itself running on just a capacitor for its bias source. And you can show the same thing with your NERD circuit-- or you could, if you had any intellectual honesty at all. But you won't, and you don't. However, some of the people you are currently trying to fool are smart enough to do it for themselves, and will, and will confirm my findings..... and refute your claims yet again. It will be amusing to watch you turn on them as the results begin to come in from their tinkerings.

IN the second place, these capacitor tests, as MileHigh points out, directly contradict another set of your bogus claims. You cannot tell the difference between the performance of the circuit running on caps or running on batteries, by looking at scope traces or load heat or any other performance parameter other than length of run, and if the energy content of the cap and battery are the same starting out.... the run lengths will even be the same. There is no difference between running on caps or batteries, except that the energy in a cap is known and repeatable.
You are so far behind it's pitiful. The only thing I need the function generator for at all is for heat profile tests.... I haven't even used a FG on Tar Baby in weeks, since we've been exploring your weak heat oscillation mode lately, for which NO FG IS REQUIRED. And the Altoid demonstrator has NEVER EVEN USED A FUNCTION GENERATOR AT ALL. Your grasping at straws is really pitiful. The fact that the F43 is awaiting parts is insignificant and prevents nothing. YOU LIE AGAIN when you claim that I am using its present inoperability as an "excuse" for anything, you liar.

Besides, the F43 is not the only FG in my stable, and the only thing that's "keeping" me from performing more tests--- tests which YOU, AINSLIE, you bloviating liar, have never yet done and are still not doing --- is that I am rather bored with your bullshit crap and I've been working on other things which are much more interesting to me.  I'm not PRETENDING anything and I'm not prevented from anything .... you, Ainslie, are the Red Queen of Pretense. And just what is it that continues to PREVENT YOU from performing any work of your own?  Have you gotten your expensive useless oscilloscope back from the repair shop yet?

You really should watch my videos, you willfully ignorant, arrogant liar Ainslie. You just might avoid putting your foot so deeply down your own throat, as you so often have done lately with your idiotic statements and lies.  How long does a voltage need to be continuous before you call it continuous? 18  percent of 100 milliseconds? Twenty five seconds out of every two and a half minutes? Five minutes? Ten minutes?

Note the date on this video and the ones before it, troll Ainslie. I can demonstrate to anyone, anytime, using their own measuring equipment, the exact same "negative mean power" that you claim is evidence of overunity performance, and I can do it with no Function Generator and NO BATTERY at all. And I've been doing it for a week and a half already.

You are an arrogant, ignorant liar, Ainslie, and YOU continue to prove it, with every post you make.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZaPnj1Ox4Y

@ea:
The continuous oscillation mode is another Ainslie red herring.

Yes, the "magic" must be in the oscillations, because the other mode is simply straight DC through a mosfet. However.... the oscillations alone cannot produce the high heat in the load that Ainslie requires. She knows this too, and has made several statements pointing out the fact that there must be a duty cycle which incorporates significant positive gate drive to Q1 in order to get the full heating effect.

Here's just one such example, from the "new forum". There are many other examples in the RAPosts.zip database.

(Where is the 555 circuit that makes the oscillation mode, though? You can see in this post that she is claiming that a 555 can be used. But we know, and even her correspondent knows, that a simple 555 timer cannot produce the negative voltage required for oscillations unless it is powered by a charge pump inverter, an additional battery added to the main battery, or a separate floating supply. And it will be providing current to the system.)