Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ANSWER THIS ONE POYNT.  Or we'll all assume you DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.  Which means you're UTTERLY ill-qualified to comment on any of the tests.  You're ONLY value is in your replications.  And you can do what you LIKE there - it makes no DIFFERENCE.  THE ONLY POINT AT ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MARKED OSCILLATIONS OF THE BATTERY VOLTAGE.  JUST THAT.  We need NOTHING more than this to substantiate our claim.  You don't see it yet.  But you can hardly blame me for your inabilities.

Here it is again.

added.  And while you're at it.  Let us know the PATH for that positive voltage across the shunt and across the load - that it breaches Q2 OR Q1 + Q2.  You can't even do this.

[poynt99]

I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. 

You saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. 

Then you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.

Sorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.


Regards,
.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. 

You saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. 

Then you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.

Sorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.


Regards,
.99

More hand waving.  Poynty - any analysis that you performed is based on the assumption that energy delivered by the battery is from the battery and any energy returned to the battery is from CEMF.  How is it that the battery can be discharging any energy at all when there's NO PATH for its discharge?  You don't even understand the question.

Rosemary

added.  And DON'T give me that 'it's greater than zero - therefore it must be coming from the battery' - bit.  Because that doesn't cut it.  IF the battery was discharging in the usual way then it would MOST CERTAINLY NOT ramp up and down above and below it's rated capacities.  WHAT is introducing SO MUCH ENERGY that the sum of the voltage across the battery first CLIMBS and then DROPS - HUGELY?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I used MEAN[vi(t)] for all the initial tests, just as you did with the LeCroy. 

We have never used MEAN vi EVER.  And you absolutely CANNOT say MEAN[vi(t)] because that's INHERENTLY contradictory.  Why don't you see this?

You saw the first results and even seemed to approve of them, and why not?, they were very similar to your own. 

ALSO WRONG.  The numbers are interesting but they're subject to the gross approximations of PSpice.  WHAT IS RELEVANT is that you duplicated that waveform across the shunt and across the batteries.  THAT grabbed my attention.  NOTHING ELSE.

Then you saw the progression towards the true battery voltage, and that was it.

WHAT PROGRESSION?  That absurd exercise in fabrication where you contradicted your earlier measurements?  I"m not interested in your measurements Poynty Point.  Never was.  Never will be.  Your measurements can be SKEWED ANY WAY YOU WANT.  We all know that.  We're ONLY interested in that battery voltage AND the shunt voltage.  That's the beginning and end of all the proof of COP INFINITY that we need.   

Sorry Rose, but the difference in those progressive results speak for themselves, and the actual measurements will back up most everything in that analysis.

And I'm sorry Poynty.  I'm sorry that you're analysis remains so UTTERLY superficial.  But I realise that you need to leave it there.  Else you'll be proved wrong.  God Forbid. 

Rosie Posie.

[poynt99]

We have never used MEAN vi EVER.

You don't say?

Too numerous to post, here is but one example of your use of MEAN(CH1 x CH2), where CH1=VCSR and CH2=the erroneous "VBAT"

.99