The manufacturer of the battery will specify an amp hour rating and a C rating load profile, typically C20. So the battery will provide n amps for 20 hours.

I would like to see an initial test where a load equivalent to the manufacturers C rating is applied and the battery tested at that rate until the voltage drops to a pre determined level, that automatically shuts the system off.

Measure the amp draw of the NERD circuit at load in DC only mode, and measure the amp draw at load in oscillation only mode. This will give two amperage measurements, for example 4 amps DC mode, 200 ma oscillation mode.

Run the same load profile test on the battery with a 4 amp load, and also separately with a 200 ma load. This will produce two more control load profile curves.

Run the NERD circuit in the same load profile test in DC mode only, then run the NERD circuit in oscillation mode only, producing two more load profile curves.

Lastly run the NERD circuit in combination mode of DC and oscillation at chosen duty cycle, producing another load profile curve.

Six curves all superimposed on the same graph should tell the story.

Calorimetric testing using TK's oil method would be my choice, allowing you to calculate heat energy at the load during the test, which will also allow you to convert that figure into electrical energy.

Most importantly the three control load profiles (manufacturer, DC only control, and oscillation only control) will allow you a base line from which to make predictions in advance of testing the NERD circuit with it's combined mode duty cycle.

I expect you will see that NERD under performs compared to the control's due to energy being dissipated in the circuit components that is not being measured or otherwise accounted for.

TK:

We could easily make a "Top 10" listing of the issues Rosie either refuses to answer and/or refuses to even acknowledge.  Something like Sterling does!  ha ha

It's a fair push back considering all the murky water under the bridge.

Threatening to reveal someone's identity is really awful no mater how you look at it.

Shifting gears, I have always been somewhat bemused with the "go to the universities" argument.  Like a graduate student would have any interest in being taken away from his or her research towards completing their degree to look at a pinging coil.  Or a professor would just drop everything to chase after magic zipons.  It's simply not realistic.

I also believe that when people in this realm have actually managed to get some space in a university, eventually the university boots them out the door.  I think that happened to Thane.

Keep your feet on the ground and keep shooting for the stars.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 01:46:19 PM
TK:

We could easily make a "Top 10" listing of the issues Rosie either refuses to answer and/or refuses to even acknowledge.  Something like Sterling does!  ha ha

Yes! That's a good idea. My favorite ones are of course the ridiculous math errors, the differences between what she reported on the day of the experiment and what's reported in the draft manuscripts, and the questions about the Q1's not turning on when it should be. What would your Top Ten "thorns" in Ainslie's panties be ?

Quote
It's a fair push back considering all the murky water under the bridge.
Threatening to reveal someone's identity is really awful no mater how you look at it.

Agreed. Even if it's going to be the wrong identity, it's still a wrong thing to do. Her insults, misrepresentations of other people's words, and lies about what's happening and what's being shown are also awful and I can't think of any other case quite so bad. Like I said, she even surpasses Archer Quinn in the arrogance department, but at least he had the "courtesy" to show his delusions on video while he was insulting his audience.

Quote
Shifting gears, I have always been somewhat bemused with the "go to the universities" argument.  Like a graduate student would have any interest in being taken away from his or her research towards completing their degree to look at a pinging coil.  Or a professor would just drop everything to chase after magic zipons.  It's simply not realistic.

Yes, I suppose you are right. It's really more appropriate for a tenth-grade science fair project. Although I've seen much more sophisticated and excellent work from tenth-graders. Maybe eighth grade? They are usually pre-calculus but have enough basic arithmetic to be able to do battery energy calculations correctly.

Quote
I also believe that when people in this realm have actually managed to get some space in a university, eventually the university boots them out the door.  I think that happened to Thane.

And to several others that I can think of. Thane, Neal Graneau at Oxford, Rossi at U of Bologna, and I don't believe that she still has use of the broom closet at CPUT, nor that Professor Khan would be very happy to see her.

Quote
Keep your feet on the ground and keep shooting for the stars.
MileHigh

Yes..... I sure wish the weather would clear up, though.

@evolvingape:

Your suggestion sounds good to me, and for a device that is alleged to produce these effects, the time element is no real consideration, as automatic monitoring and controls are easy (for electronically competent people) to design and implement.

There's one more thing I'd like to see though, for the "DC" mode: I want to see the NERD device operated in straight DC mode (positive gate signal to the Q1 mosfet)  using the 72 volt battery supply and the physical build we have been shown and circuit that we are told is correct, for 24 hours.

Oh... I'd also like to see the device dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours, while making a scope trace like that given in Paper 1, Figure 7.

Or even boil a cupful of water, since the 5.9 megaJoule claim has apparently been stealthily withdrawn.

Why was the 5.9 megaJoule claim removed from the current revision of the manuscript? Was it in error? A typo? A miscalculation?
Or was it removed because it was a blatant, caught-out lie?

TK:

I suppose that any list could be given a positive spin, in the sense that it would highlight the pitfalls that Rosemary would want to avoid in any future testing.  She says on her forum that "this time it will be conclusive" which is an implicit acknowledgement of all of the problems she has had so far.

My contenders:

- Anecdotal comments without hard data for battery testing are unacceptable
- Anecdotal comments without hard data for water heating are unacceptable
- All disagreements about the way the circuit runs must be resolved (i.e.; current passing through the function generator)
- Must have power-in and power-out data summary
- Problems with circuit operation must be resolved (PW and the dead MOSFET issue)
- Willingness to perform additional tests after presentation of data
- DSO or scope shots with aliasing/bandwidth issues unacceptable

I am kind of numb about the whole thing these days and I am foggy.  I know you have been sharp as a tack with respect to Ainsley issues so you and others probably have much better things to add.

I am just about out of gas with respect to the whole saga.  This whole business with having to pound messages into Rosemary at least 100 times before you get even the inkling of acknowledgement or understanding from her is draining.  I don't know if she ever even acknowledged that the main current loop in the circuit is flowing right through the function generator.  Those pregnant pause moments where you see how big the reality disconnect is with Rosemary are now a dime a dozen.

MileHigh