Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

For those that would also like to have all the schematics and scope shots posted thus far in order and in one convenient place, here is the updated pdf file.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks Poynt.  Is that it?  Or is there more to come?  I don't really want to interrupt all this.

Regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

There is one or two more yet to come, per my "more to follow".

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt  - here's the problem.  In order to disclaim benefit you first need to prove that there's no oscillation through the battery.  The thing you've got to do is show that no current flows through the battery during the negative cycle.  Because - here's the thing.  IF the oscillation is evident across the battery then - no matter the positive or negative voltage across the shunt resistor - instantaneous wattage analysis remains as a negative wattage.  This is the result of the advantage in the anti phase relationship between the shunt and battery voltage.  You just don't seem to get it.  Read the point of our 2nd test. 

And I haven't even dealt with your contradictions yet.  Your first set of examples did not factor in ANY inductance between the batteries.  Yet the value was equal to your 'expanded version' where you did factor this in.  And we know it wasn't factored in as we did that simulation.  Yet now you DO factor it in and then you reduce that inductance to show a corresponding decrease in the wattage.  My question is this.  How come it now shows a loss where it wasn't shown earlier?   It makes me nervous that there are hidden factors here Poynty.  We really need to know ALL your applied measurement parameters. 

And finally.  It is absolutely an incontestable fact that we REQUIRE inductance in order to generate that second cycle of current.  The difference is this.  You claim that if you remove it you thereby remove some of the benefit in that gain.  We agree entirely.  We need that material in order to KEEP THE VALUE of the current equal to or greater than the current that was first applied from the supply source.  That was the ENTIRE POINT of this and ALL similar circuits that we've built.  Here it is again.  The thesis requires that the circuit material itself is the source of the extra energy that is evident in the negative flow of current through the supply.  The difference is only in this.  Before we showed that benefit as a 'spike'.  Now we show it as it really is which is an self-sustaining oscillation. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think I need to comment on this post before it's lost in the thread.

For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:

If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.

You need to specify whether you mean total power delivered or total power dissipated. Self-evidently it is NOT the total power in the circuit as the resistor element is also dissipating heat - is the first point. 

In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.

And here we have another contradiction.  May I remind you that your earlier results showed the following

                         Original full wire length: -106W
                         2/3 battery wire length: -77W
                         1/3 battery wire length: -48.5W

-3.8 * 6 is -22.8 watts - which no longer bears any relationship to the -106 watts as measured previously over the entire range of batteries.  I'm adding this as my point is not clear.  One would expect a proportionate reduction in the wattage - surely?

Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.

This makes no sense.  We have been given to understand that the power measurements, although represented as an average, were computed as the instantaneous product of vi dt.  How did you compute the amperage through the battery to determine +1.4 watts?  If you factored in the current flow from the resistance of the shunt at 1 Ohm - then, without question, you will INDEED get a positive value.  Because what you've actually factored OUT of the analysis is the rather significant fact that the current flow is both positive and negative - both clockwise and anti clockwise - both discharging AND recharging the battery.  Therefore - by simply eliminating the actual polarity of the current flow - by simply ASSUMING a positive current flow - then you MUST - INEVITABLY - get that number back to show a net discharge from the battery.  We do NOT typically see a 'negative' voltage across the battery.  Ever.  What we do see is a negative current flow through the battery.  You really need to show these waveforms if you're going to claim anything at all here Poynty.  Certainly if we're meant to follow this argument.  And whether the net current flow measured through the shunt is positive or negative - the fact remains that the instantaneous product of this and the battery voltage results in a negative mean wattage delivered by the battery supply. Again.  Please refer to our test 2 referenced in the report.

When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.

I cannot understand this at all.  Please clarify.  I understand the point of a 'common negative' as you put it.  But that 'common negative' is consistent with the flow of current during the discharge cycle of the battery.  It is therefore also consistent with the flow of current during the recharge cycle of the battery.  Correctly your wattage 'probe' if that's what's used to determine the actual instantaneous battery voltage and current through the battery should be positioned in the same way.  Why are you reversing it?  Please show us a schematic that indicates what you mean here.

Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W,

We do NOT know this?  Where did -5.45 watts come from?  You claimed +1.4 watts.  Then you made some kind of qualification with a rather confusing reference to your wattage probe polarity which I simply can't understand - and now you're claiming that the ACTUAL wattage, notwithstanding the earlier claim of +1.4 watts - is, in fact a negative 5.45 watts?  May we impose on you to please give us a schematic showing where you've put those probes if this is the source of the confusion.  Otherwise please stop referring to whichever of these two results are incorrect.  You have given yourself the extraordinary license of referring to either/or with a kind of freedom of choice that I am not sure is entirely applicable to accurate measurements anywhere. 

and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect.

What?  What are you trying to say?  Now we're back to your earlier statement.  Which value is correct?  +1.4 watts or -5.45 watt?  And what is absolutely NOT arguable is that the resistor Ohms is EVER factored in at 0.25 Ohms in your numbers.  It absolutely should NOT be applied to your simulations.  It ONLY ever kicks in when we compute the wattage during the brief 'on' period of the duty cycle when there are also no oscillations.  And your sims don't show this period at all.  You only work with those oscillations.  So.  If you're going to factor in 0.25 Ohms then this is most certainly wrong.  Then let me get back to this point you made.  You really need to clarify this Poynty.  You cannot use either value.  It's one or 'tother' - never either or - and certainly never both.  So.  Bearing the following 'quote' in mind as representative of 'true power' ...

       "As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W,"

it makes the balance of this reference rather absurd as you proceed to reference the +1.4 watts that you claim must be wrong if the -5.45 is correct.  And here's the rest of that reference.

If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).

Golly.  Does PSpice not manage impedance values?  Or are you saying that because your +5.6 watts balances better with your -5.45 watts that you prefer to NOT factor in the required impedance?  Are you suggesting that classical protocol errs when it computes an impedance value greater than the actual measured resistance when higher frequencies are applied?  Or are you actually running that oscillation at a really, really slow frequency? 

And then to compound the confusions you then state as follows

Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.

Now we seem to be back to your earlier 'correct' analysis.  So where then is the relevance of your denial of this in your previous paragraph?  And why then contradict this AGAIN hereunder.

Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.

And then this rather startling conclusion...

Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.

As far as I remember you have NOT reversed the CSR probes.  I certainly HOPE NOT.  What you said was that you reversed your wattage probes and I am still not sure why?  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way they're configured. 

Poynty.  I'm rather inclined to think that your baffling us with that proverbial dust from bovines of the masculine gender.  You really need to explain the bases of your arguments better - with respect.  Please clarify these points before you confuse any of us any further. 

Regards,
Rosemary

(added)