If only the battery interconnects and the wire between the negative most battery terminal and the CSR were shortened and "beefed up", it would help.

If the batteries are arranged so that the negative most and positive most battery terminal are both immediately adjacent to the circuit board, a 'scope probe may reach between the beefed up and shortened negative most battery terminal/CSR connection and the positive most terminal of the battery stack.

By probing directly between the negative most and positive most battery terminals, the positive most battery terminal's lead wire going to the circuit board can remain as long as is desired.

However, you would still have the battery inductance to deal with.  The entire battery string could be decoupled/bypassed with a cap or, as .99 suggested, decouple/bypass only the negative most battery, measure across that battery and multiply by the number of batteries in the string to get an accurate battery voltage reading.  The wires connecting the decoupling cap across the battery (or batteries) would also need to be as short and large as possible to reduce the lead inductance to the cap.

Rosemary tells a flat-out lie that the duty cycle for the circuit initially referred to by gmeast is on for ~3.5% of the time.

The duty cycle is exactly the reverse (close to 97% on), and as a consequence there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the heat observed (inaccurate and vague though those observations were)

Voltage drop is a very poor measure of the remaining energy capacity of the battery when meaurements are done in such an approximate way. Other posters have directed Rosemary to the sort of manufacturers table used to approximate capacity from terminal voltage - you are dealing with small changes in measured voltage representing large changes in remaining capacity (a surprise to me at least)

She's had this and may other errors gently and not-so-gently pointed out to her many, many times.

I give full credit for gmeast attempting to replicate diligently something he believes has value and don't question his motives. But he's being serially lied to and misled.


ETA: Direct links are rarely given because Rosemary has a history of changing things under your feet as the situation demands - double jeopardy on her own forum. Screenshots preserve the comment being responded to.

@YouSaidWhat

Would you be willing to state what your qualifications are? This isn't an attempt to rubbish your opinion (from me at least), but there's a colossal amount of evidence and discussion on these claims and replications. Referring to something that's to the point and at a suitable level would be a lot faster if you'd share.

I have no professional qualifications, just (largely forgotten) high school maths, physics and electronics.

Quote from: Yousaidwhat on August 11, 2012, 08:24:04 AM
@TK

Why do you never give direct links?   

Here's a direct link for you. Start here and work your way back 12 years over 4 forums.

http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.ca/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html

Quote
It seems that picowatt the ponderous or pretentious or pathetic - take your pick... has devolved a unique method of determining frequency.

Such a nice lady... and no, it is far from a unique method...

Quote
According to him one need only multiply any one half of any one sine wave - by two?

Yes, of course you can.  Measure the time duration of one-half of a sine wave at FWHM, multiply by two, and invert the result for frequency. 

Quote
We may well have 4 amps or thereby chasing through each half of each sine wave through the shunt resistor.

I thought that you understood and agreed some time ago that the current measurements calculated from the shunt trace needed to be corrected for the inductance of the CSR.  When the CSR is corrected for inductance, 4 amps is not indicated on either polarity half-cycle, even when using the lower frequency indicated by the 'scope's trigger frequency.  When and if you repeat these tests with a non-inductive CSR resistor, you will likely discover that the actual current indicated is closer to 1-1.5 amps for each positive and negative half-cycle.   

Quote
Just way too many ACRONYMS.

I assume by acronyms you are referring to the abbreviations "FWHM" and "FFT"?

I specifically stated what FWHM was the abbreviation for, just for you.   You can web search "FWHM" if you like, nothing unique, a "standard measurement protocol", as you would say.

"FFT" is "Fast Fourier Transform", another web search will tell you more.  As it relates to your 'scope, look in your operator's manual for "FFT".  You will see the 'scope has the capability to display the frequency content of a waveform.

All non-sinusoidal waveforms have many more frequencies contained in their waveforms than is indicated by the trigger frequency readout on a 'scope in normal display mode.  By using an FFT algorithm, most digital 'scopes can display the frequency and amplitude of all the individual frequencies and harmonics contained within a measured waveform.   

Quote
The fact is that we measure more energy returned to the battery supply than was EVER delivered. 

No one disputes that the 'scope is displaying a negative mean power measurement.   The need to consider the inductance of the lead wiring, the batteries, and CSR, regarding that measurement, is apparently under dispute.

Is their something you do not yet understand?  Do you understand that a simple wire has an inductance?  The basics of capacitive and inductive reactance?  MOSFET capacitance?  The +12 volts to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 and why Q1 is not turning on?


ADDED:

Quote
added

And here's the benefit of never posting a link.  picowatt will NEVER reference this post.  He dare not.  He hasn't got an honest bone in him.  Just pure LARD.  And by the looks of it way, way too much. LOL

Again, such a nice lady.  Exactly what causes you to claim I am "dishonest"?  Care to back that up with a reference?

As for not posting your link, you do not post any links to my posts (or even quotes) so why should I bother? 

The one who apparently "dare not" is "you", particularly with regard to Q1 not turnng on in FIG3, 6,and 7 even though sufficient gate drive is indicated in those 'scope captures to turn Q1 on. 

So, indeed, who is being dishonest?  Intellectually or otherwise...