Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[TinselKoala]

You do make me laugh, that's for sure.
All this time.... don't forget that I've been following you since Naked Scientists, ha ha, where you tried to convince people who work in the industry designing MOSFET switching power supplies that you had a patent for some kind of invention .... all this time, and you still haven't shown a single proper battery load test or control experiment. You still haven't boiled a teapot of water for less cost than you could do with a straight DC immersion heater. You still haven't gotten anything accepted by IEEE and you still think you have "heavyweights" behind you. After all this time.

Who was the first one to show boiling water using your circuit, huh? Who first showed the errors in the original Quantum article circuit, huh? Who actually DUPLICATED your original heat vs. time profiles, using your original circuit and your mistaken duty cycle, that is, confirming that your entire experiment and the conclusions based on it were BOGUS due to the inverted duty cycle error? HuH? Have you conveniently forgotten the significance of that little fact?

You are the one who should THINK HARD, because you are really embarrassing yourself and you don't even have the wit to realize it. Let's see the article you are publishing. Your last attempt didn't go so well......

[poynt99]

A re-post of the brief discussion on the polarity of power for sources and sinks.

Regarding the probes across the CSR; note the voltage across the battery and CSR are in reverse polarity, hence the power computation for sources sourcing power is NEGATIVE. Since the probes on the CSR are in reverse, the polarity of the power computation results in a POSITIVE figure.

Power coming from (as opposed to going to) a source such as a battery, will always compute to a negative number.

In the attached diagram, there is a simple example with one source (Vbat) and some resistive loads, R1, R2, and CSR1.

The electric field across any source is always in opposition to the direction of current through that source.

I have marked the direction of current in RED and the polarity of the potential difference across each component in BLUE. Note that the battery Vbat has a potential difference opposite to that of all three loads? Since power in a component is the voltage across it times the current through it, it's now obvious why a source will have a negative sign associated with its power. At the loads, the potential difference across them and the current through them are in the same direction, and hence the power associated with any load is positive.

Under normal circumstances, any power source loses or gives up energy, and any load gains or receives energy, so this is an easy way to remember what polarity the power should be in each.

SPICE does not do anything unusual by applying a negative polarity to any source power that it plots on its scope, because you can see that this is precisely how the math works out.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm getting rather tired of this Poynty.  There is, indeed, a school of thought that proposes that current from a battery supply source, flows from the negative rail to the positive rail in an anti clockwise direction - IF that's the point you're trying to make.  But the polarity of measurable potential difference at the supply is ALWAYS consistent with the direction of current flow - regardless of that electric field theory. And the polarity of that potential difference from a battery supply source is always represented as POSITIVE.  Therefore is the flow of current signaled to be greater than zero and the resulting counter electromotive force signaled to be less than zero. 

All we're interested in here is the sum of those two current flows.  Because what is evident is that this then results in a NET GAIN to that supply.  In terms of which, MORE current flows back to the battery to RECHARGE it than was first delivered to DISCHARGE it.  If you are now trying to argue that the positive - or clockwise current flow through a circuit - actually results in a recharge to the battery then just put a light in series with a battery and a non-inductive shunt at the battery terminal.  You'll see that the voltage across that shunt - on either side of the battery terminals will show a POSITIVE VOLTAGE or POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  And that resulting current flow will light the light and DISCHARGE the battery.

I don't see the point of those schematics and I don't see that your argument is relevant.  And Poynty?  What are those equations about?  You really need to define what you mean by P.  Is is meant to represent POWER?  Or PROBE?  WHAT?

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You do make me laugh, that's for sure.
All this time.... don't forget that I've been following you since Naked Scientists, ha ha, where you tried to convince people who work in the industry designing MOSFET switching power supplies that you had a patent for some kind of invention .... all this time, and you still haven't shown a single proper battery load test or control experiment. You still haven't boiled a teapot of water for less cost than you could do with a straight DC immersion heater. You still haven't gotten anything accepted by IEEE and you still think you have "heavyweights" behind you. After all this time.

Who was the first one to show boiling water using your circuit, huh? Who first showed the errors in the original Quantum article circuit, huh? Who actually DUPLICATED your original heat vs. time profiles, using your original circuit and your mistaken duty cycle, that is, confirming that your entire experiment and the conclusions based on it were BOGUS due to the inverted duty cycle error? HuH? Have you conveniently forgotten the significance of that little fact?

You are the one who should THINK HARD, because you are really embarrassing yourself and you don't even have the wit to realize it. Let's see the article you are publishing. Your last attempt didn't go so well......

TK - always delighted to hear that I amuse you.  Apparently laughter has a real therapeutic value - So.  Whatever I've contributed - that's a good thing. Your historical references are rather SKEWED - but why let reality intrude on all that good feeling?

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie

[poynt99]

P1, P2, P3, and P4 are measurement points or nodes. These nodes are where the scope probes are placed in reference to the two equations.

P_R1 and P_Vbat means:

Power of R1, and Power of Vbat, respectively.

.99