TK:

Let me take a crack at it.

I have to use my own variable names:  V_no_load and V_load, R_load, and unknown R_int

So, R = V/I

Thus R_int = (V_no_load - V_load)/(V_load/R_load)

Note that R_load can be any resistance value, you don't have to fry the battery with a 1-ohm resistor.  Note that it is a trivial thing to do in a spreadsheet = real time R_int calculations - all that you have to do is attach your load resistor for a second and make a single voltage measurement and punch it into the spreadsheet cell.

The interesting question is does R_int remain constant for different values of R_load?   I would guess it does but as R_load starts to get really low it starts to change.  Of course R_int is most useful as an indication of if you are approaching a discharged battery condition because it will start to creep up.

The key thing is for different battery sizes and different battery technologies you will have typical R_int values.  So by spot checking your R_int you should get to "know" your battery.   When you start to observe R_int starting to creep up quite soon even though you have freshly charged the battery you can assume that the battery is reaching the end of its life cycle.  It would suggest a good Bedini charge test also only when you finally observe that the battery is approaching the end of its life cycle.   When you Bedini charge your battery, do you go back to a lower R_int?

Finally, there is the "big unknown," almost forbidden fruit.  The big unknown is how many good recharges do you get after you Bedini charge your battery just once to "bring it back to life?"  100 cycles?  50 cycles?  10 cycles?  Whatever it is, one can suspect that eventually even the Bedini rejuvenation charging stops working and the battery is totally spent.  It has simply deteriorated, entropy is always increasing.

MileHigh

Yes, but for a real test the load resistance should be on the order of the battery's Rint itself. This will minimize measurement error, even if it does require putting a big drain on the battery.

But no matter at all; it's plain from the last few discussions that the entire concept of the equivalent series resistance or internal resistance of a battery is a foreign concept to RA. How does it fit in with the whole zipon "thesis"? It does not and cannot... therefore it is wrong.

.99 has just illustrated, and hopefully has also gotten an acknowledgement, that the voltages shown in Ainslie's OWN DATA in the scopeshots show batteries that are SIGNIFICANTLY DISCHARGED. This of course shows that once again, the claims made in the papers are not supported and are in fact lies. The lie of "no measureable discharge of the batteries" is easy to see: in most of her scopeshots the batteries are at just over 12 volts each, nowhere near the 12.7 or greater that should be indicated by fully charged batteries. And a 60 A-H battery isn't going to sag much under the load of the Ainslie circuit -- 6 or 7 amps max-- if it is fully charged. So those displayed voltages in all her scopeshots are indicating batteries that are nowhere near fully charged, in most cases.


"When is a material conductive, and when is it inductive?"

Yes.... I'd like to hear the answer to that myself... or rather, I'd like to hear Ainslie's _response_ to the answer to that.

And..... finally.......  "Is that fair?"

Yes, it's fair to say..... it's facepalm time again.


I just cannot resist putting this in, in the interests of full documentation.

I see that Ainslie is crowing about having "published" her "second paper" on Rossi's JNP.


Here is the schematic diagram included in that publication, taken by me about three minutes ago.

Here is Figure 2 from that JNP "publication".

Note several things.

First, the battery voltage mean is 73.8 volts, steady.
This means that each of the batteries is at 12.3 volts.... and according to the data tables that .99 has posted in Ainslie's honeytrap, this means that the batteries are 40-50 percent DISCHARGED.... yet in the paper Ainslie claims that they are all of them still fully charged.

Second, the gate drive voltage is in excess of 12 volts positive during the non-oscillating portions, yet no current is indicated on the CVR trace.

And, for another joke, here is Figure 7 from the current "publication" on Rossi's JNP.

Note the transistor Q1 and Q2 designations, and the G, D, S leg designations.  This diagram and several others which purport to explain the flows in the circuit....

DO NOT EVEN CORRESPOND TO ANY OF THE ACTUAL SCHEMATICS GIVEN.

Can these problems be fixed by simple edits, changing the names of things, the leg letters? I'd like to see it happen... ALONG WITH A PROPER ERRATA SHEET EXPLAINING THE DISCREPANCIES.

But I might as well pray for rain, I guess.