Poor Rosemary is in over her head.

I am in 'lite' mode around here and I did not yet read PW's long posting dealing with this issue.  It looks like Rosemary is going to do that run-down test where one of the two batteries is a control connected to a fixed load.  She will then swap the batteries after the first run, recharge them, and then do the test again.

So, supposing that you do this test and in each case the battery driving the NERD setup runs longer.  Has that proven anything?  The answer is a resounding NO!

Are you sure your control load is the same as the NERD setup load?  NO!

Since your scope traces are telling you that there may be some energy returned to the source battery then you can expect that the battery running the NERD setup will run longer than the control battery (assuming that the loads were perfectly matched) because there may indeed be some energy being returned to the battery.

So, factoring that in, how much longer should the NERD battery run?  Not an easy question to answer at all because you are not sure how much recharging might be going on.  So Rosie hasn't a clue what the "expected increased run time" should be, if we are assuming that the NERD battery is getting partially recharged.

Rosie's original argument for "COP infinity" is as follows, "More energy is being returned to the battery while it powers the NERD circuit, therefore the battery is actually being recharged while the setup runs.  Therefore the battery is just "providing potential" and it should be able to power the NERD circuit indefinitely.  Rosemary backed away from that idea a long time ago.

If this test was to prove something, the discharge time would have to be (standard run time + extra time due to partial recharging + magic NERD bonus Zipon free energy run time).  There would also have to be a lot of "magic NERD bonus Zipon free energy run time" to be really convincing.

Note that's a test that has been proposed by Rosemary in the past, just hook the battery to the NERD circuit, and let it run for six months non-stop.  After the six months the battery should still be fully charged.  After all, we use very sophisticated measuring instruments and the instruments don't lie.

Hence the reasonable dim bulb test as proposed by TK as a way to confirm or deny "COP infinity."  To nobody's surprise except perhaps for Rosie, a battery that powered the Tar Baby for a while was then shown to have far less remaining chemical energy than three other batteries that were untouched.  Exactly the same thing will happen with the NERD circuit.

That's the test that Rosemary should be doing.  She alleges that the batteries don't discharge while they power the NERD circuit so they should power a bulb as long as fully-charged batteries that haven't been touched.

But you are afraid to run that test, aren't you, Rosemary?  Or you could run the dim bulb test as a supplement to any other "approved battery testing protocol" but you probably won't dare do it, will you Rosemary?

So poor Rosie is left with a test and a control battery protocol from 2002.  She has no clue what the control load should be but with some trial and error and some outside help she may figure that out.  She knows that the test battery running the NERD circuit may indeed run longer than the control, but she has no idea how much longer.  So she is in a tizzy.

But Rosie dear, the battery is supposed to run "forever," it's a "COP infinity" system!

Me thinks that with Rosie's new battery tests and presumably a new paper, that nobody will publish anything.  Back to square one for the woman that knows very little about energy and electronics and barely understands how to use a DSO and interpret the data on the DSO display.

MileHigh

The whole battery issue is another red herring.

Let's hear some coherent reason why capacitors don't "work" and yet they make the same oscillations as happen with a battery or any other power supply.

That is.... capacitors _do_ work fine, they just _do_ discharge, and so do batteries.

Capacitors have the rather inconvenient feature, for Ainslie, that their energy content can be precisely known and repeated trial after trial. They are the ultimate "rechargeable battery" and especially with ELECTROLYTIC capacitors....  there is even ion chemistry involved.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Laugh, I've decided. Definitely laugh.

Yes, Brian, you are missing something.

Here's what the "first article" actually says:

QuoteB. Test 3 Results
The cycle mean and mean average voltage across the shunt measured a negative voltage as did the
math trace being a product of the battery and RSHUNT voltages. These negative values remained
throughout the 1.6 hour test period. The temperature at the RL1 rose steadily to 248°C. The element
resistor (RL1) was then immersed in about 0.85 liters of water and the water temperature then steadied
at approximately 82°C. The switching period was then increased and set to approximately 1.25
milliseconds as evident in Fig. 7. The temperature of the water then rose to 104°C in less than 10
minutes. The battery voltage both rose and fell marginally, throughout this entire test period and
measured 62.1 volts prior to concluding that test period.

Then there is a scopeshot, which clearly DOES show current being drawn from the battery, (this is the paper's Fig 7, which is the SCRN0355 shot included in the Ainslie blogpost 117 and 118);  then there is this bit of math:

Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C, which points to a secondary
exploitable potential. At no stage in this test was any energy depleted by the batteries as measured in
the math trace and spreadsheet analysis. Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply. Given 4.1 joules required to heat 1 gram
of water by 1°C then over the entire 1.6 hour test period about 5 904 000 joules were dissipated. The
batteries rated capacity is

And that's where it stops. No battery rated capacity is given here, in this revised and corrected paper.... although it has been given variously as 60, 50 and 40 amphours. I'm happy with 60, although it could even be much higher than that.

Can anyone tell me how that 5,904,000 Joule figure was arrived at for the "total" dissipation over the time of the test?

Now... how many Joules are in that battery pack of 5 each, 60 amp hour, TWELVE VOLT batteries, Brian?

And here are the blog posts 117 and 118 where Ainslie describes this EXACT SAME EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL on the day that it was performed.

Compare, contrast.... conclude.