Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, while I'm busy at this I wonder if I can remind you of the actual anomalies.  The fact is that the current that is being returned to the battery supply is equal to or greater than the current that was first discharged from the battery.  That is the point.  While this is consistent with simulations - it's also more glaringly evident on the experimental apparatus.  The fact is that this little bit of energy that is either gained or retained by the battery supply is able to 'cook' either our element or as is now being tested separately, the 12 volt automotive solder iron - at wattages that are measured to be upwards of 80 watts.  So.  The actual level of current flow does nothing to discharge the supply and does everything to heat the load. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

No disrespect intended Rose, but I'd prefer to continue with this exercise until it is completed, rather than risk a lengthy, arduous debate at this time. I have one or two more installments to go, then all should be quite clear.

For the record though, I have indeed been posting all the necessary scope shots, including the battery current, via the CSR voltage wave form (VCSR or V3-2). That wave form clearly shows both positive and negative instantaneous battery current in all cases. Also, the schematics clearly show where the scope probes are placed, in all cases.

It is also apparent from your comments that you do not fully understand what I have been showing, and why. That is most unfortunate.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You keep writing things and then skipping past the questions and so you go -  ever twisting Poynty.  Very slippery.  You REALLY need to explain this paragraph.  Where exactly are the probes?  If they're as shown in the schematic then they are NOT reversed.  And let us know which wattage value is right and which is wrong and WHY.  Again.  I see now that you claim that you actually DO reverse your probes across the shunt?  Still not sure why. Because they're correct as per your schematic.  What you say is that it's needed to 'establish a common ground'.  IF you've established a common ground then they are NOT reversed.  SO.  Back to the question.  Which value is right?  The +1.4 watts or the -5.4 watts?  They can't both be right.  Surely it would not involve that lengthy debate - that you complain about -  to indicate which value you think is correct.  And you absolutely CANNOT claim that they're both correct.  Here's the reference.

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.
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.

And here is the actual quote referenced above. 

"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)."  WHERE are they reversed?  Certainly they're NOT reversed on the schematic.

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, 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. 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).

And this, with or without respect - is the single most absurd piece of nonsense written in the name of scientific measurement.  HOW exactly to you justify IGNORING the impedance on a known resistance and inductance of the CSR at the frequencies of that oscillation?  Unless you are now claiming that classical measurement protocols are WRONG?  I'm sorry Poynty.  It's one thing to attempt to balance out the measured power values.  But what you CANNOT do is 'pick a number' that looks right.  The resistance of the shunt at 0.25 Ohms is most certainly WRONG unless you're using a 'pure' resistor in your schematic.  And you have NOT specified this. And then you are NOT replicating our circuit but simply designing a NEW circuit with different parameters. 

And so these contradictions continue.  On and On. 

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

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

Nota Bene.  You clearly and unambiguously state the following.

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

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.

Golly.  IF you eliminate the inductance and with a reversed polarity resulting from the reversal of the probe positions and assuming a zero inductance on the CSR and ......? .

This isn't a scientific argument.  It's a fantasy.  It's an attempt to redefine a circuit with measured inductances and measured resistances and then changing the known values and substituting it with all with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to build experimentally.   Why?  And why should we take your proposals seriously unless you first explain this?  I assure you that there is no-one will understand you Poynt - unless they're telepathic perhaps.  Because what you're writing is confusing and contradictory and no longer bears reference to the actual circuit that your simulation should be simulating.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Let me see if I can simplify the argument for you.

Mainstream argument is this.  Voltage from the supply * amperage from the supply * time - is the total energy available to a circuit.  Therefore energy measured to be dissipated at the circuit can NEVER exceed the amount of energy first delivered.  Therefore in calculating the energy dissipated it is required that this amount DOES NOT EXCEED the amount of energy first supplied. That's Kirchhoff's Law.  Therefore current * voltage * time supplied by the source will always equal current * voltage * time on all the work measured to result from that input of energy from the supply. 

Faraday's inductive laws - on the other hand - require that current from a supply can induce a counter polarised potential over inductive and conductive material.  This measurable potential can induce a reversed current flow where voltage across that material * amperage * time from reversed polarisation of that that voltage allows that inductive and conductive circuit material to become a secondary energy supply source. 

Mainstream assumption has been that the amount of potential difference that is then induced over circuit material will, nonetheless, obey Kirchhoff's laws.  Therefore, the amount of energy dissipated through those collapsing fields as a result of Faraday's Inductive Laws and widely referred to as counter electromotive force - together with the amount of energy returned to recharge the battery - will still equal the amount of energy first supplied.  Therefore do Kirchhoff's Laws remain inviolate.

However.  All measurements of energy delivered by an electric energy supply source relates to the loss of charge measured at the supply.  A measure of this loss is not readily accessible at a utility supply plug source as typically, this only measures the amount of energy delivered. This because the value of the applied potential difference remains constant regardless of the amount of energy that may be measured to have been delivered versus the amount of energy that may be measured to have been dissipated.  However.  This value is readily enabled by the use of a battery supply source as any loss or gain of charge or potential difference, is readily measured at the terminals of that supply as voltage.

What is known about the discharge and recharge of a battery supply source is that current delivered in a clockwise direction through the circuit - which is signaled above zero - is shown to deplete the voltage or the potential difference at that battery supply source.  Equally, current delivered in an anti clockwise direction through the circuit - which is signaled below zero - is shown to replenish the voltage or the potential difference at that source. 

What is evident in this circuit of ours is that the voltage that is returned to recharge the supply from the reversed potential difference induced over those inductive and conductive circuit materials during the 'clock wise' flow of current - is then able to return either the same or more current than was first initiated from that supply.  This results in a zero loss of potential difference at the supply.  Notwithstanding which, the results ALSO show that there is a considerable amount of energy being dissipated on the circuit that does NOT relate to the amount of energy supplied.  This because the amount of energy from the battery is the sum of the battery voltage * current * time both delivered by and returned to that source.   This results in a negative or zero loss of potential difference at the supply.  Yet the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit is measured to be anything from 7 watts to upwards of 88 watts. 

And the output or work on the circuit only depends on the amount of potential difference applied to the circuit material from an initiating cycle in a switching circuit - the availability of path to enable that counter electromotive force and the frequency at which the switch is applied.  And what you're doing in your simulations here - Poynt - is proving this argument.  Because by eliminating the inductive components on the circuit you are then also eliminating the induced potentials required to show this benefit.

Sorry.  I left out the conclusion.  Therefore - in as much as the energy delivered by the supply is zero - yet there is considerable energy measured to be dissipated as heat - then one may conclude that the circuit material is, indeed, a potential energy supply source - provided only that its  inductive potentials are enabled through Faraday's Laws of Induction.

Regards,
Rosemary
Added.

also amended.  I wrote current where I should have written Voltage.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Guys, I think the most of us know that this inductive 'kick back' has benefit.  But the actual questions here relate to what actually affords this kick?  It's one thing to point to this HUGE surplus of energy over anything previously predicted - but WHAT in fact, is the source of all that energy?  I would propose that it's long overdue that the properties of current flow actually get evaluated.  If these results of ours are correct - then we really do have a problem.  Because whatever is responsible for heating our heaters and lighting our lights is clearly NOT related to the depletion of any property in the current itself.  This is now shown to come from a source and to return to that source.  And depending on how it moves, depending on it's polarity or its direction - it can either recharge or discharge that potential difference without any real material loss as required by our concept of energy 'dissipating' at the various work stations on the circuit.

Then there's the questions related to that oscillation.  What precisely enables the continual 'imbalance' that also seems to generate a perpetual resonating condition at such high values.  The current from the battery induces a potential difference over the circuit materials that then induces a potential difference at the supply - and so it goes.  Never do either the circuit nor the supply seem to find that required balance that is the actual known object of charge flow.  Could it be that there are two separate current supply sources and never the twain do 'mix' - so to speak?  Because that would indeed explain why the oscillation perpetuates itself.   

Lots of questions.  I just wish the debate could move there instead of this incessant need to question the results that are - now - no longer contestable. 

Regards,
Rosemary