another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Now... back to issues of substance, with regard to testing.

If I replicate Rosemary's circuit as Fuzzy has shown, using the bank of mosfets and my three 12 V 5 A-H batteries in series.... how will I know that I have achieved OU performance?

Let's say that I take 900 grams of water at 16 degrees C, and, over the course of a hundred minutes, manage to heat it up to boiling, or 104 degrees whichever comes first, and even boil off a few grams. It's pretty clear that my batteries contain  3 batteries x 12 V x 5 A x 60 minutes x 60 seconds of energy, or in "mathcode", 3 x 12 x 5 x 60 x 60 which equals 648000 somethings, which if we got the dimensions right, should be Joules.

Now it's not really fair to expect me to duplicate Rosemary's feat of 25.6 million Joules, is it? I'm not sure, since the battery doesn't supply any power to Rosemary's circuit, what voltage and amp-hour capacity should have to do with anything.....but perhaps there's something I don't understand. How about if I only have to do 3/5 the amount of water? Is that fair? So 3/5 of 900... that is 540 grams of water. Fair?

So, if I raise 540 grams of water by 88 degrees in a hundred minutes, that's (using Rosemary's calculation method since a Joule is a Watt Per Second) 4.18 x 540 x 88 x 100 minutes x 60 seconds, or 19 863 360 "somethings" which she calls Joules. (Never mind that the unit dimensions don't work out; that is the way she did it, you can check, and her "academics" have assured her it's right). Clearly.... if I can just heat that water up to boiling (or 104 degrees, whichever comes first) then I will have replicated Rosemary's claim, since "in that one test alone" I will have used up about 30 times the battery's entire capacity, and there's no way that could happen unless the battery is recharging... RIGHT??

So if I raise to a boil 540 grams of water with Rosemary's circuit and my three 12 V batteries, and then at the end I still measure 12 volts or more on my batteries.... did I manage to replicate, or not? Since, by her reasoning, I've used so much more than the battery could supply, it should be long flat and dead as a doorknob. RIGHT, WILBY?

But according to the math that eatenbyagrue uses, it should only take 4.18 x 540 x 88 = 198 633 Joules (and this time the unit dimensions DO work out, but never mind) or about under a third of my battery's total capacity.

So...

[TinselKoala]

So...Mags, taking the heat.... in the photos I posted just a while ago... is that Rosemary's circuit version 1, as in the drawing posted by Fuzzy, or not? I realize the load is different, and I only have the single mosfet FOR THE MOMENT... but what else is not to your liking? Maybe your pet Wilby can advise you on that one.

OMG... my shunt and gate drive resistors are 0.3 ohms, instead of 0.25 and 0.5 !! That will obviously void my warranty. Even if they are 5 % tolerance resistors.

Excuse me while I continue ROFLing.

[Magluvin]

Excuse me while I continue ROFLing.

You might want to have a doctor check that out. Does that happen all the time? There just may be one of those new fangled medications that will fix ya right up there in a jiffy.
No, No. Excuse me.  Now Shush   Im working.

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - here's the revised proposed definitive draw down test.

1    We apply the element resistor to a variable power supply source
2    We adjust the applied voltage until the applied power measures approximately 60 watts. 
3    On our 10 Ohm resistor this is anticipated to be 24 volts x 2.4 amps = 57.6 watts or thereby
4    We measure the stable temperature of that element at that level of wattage delivered by the variable supply
5    We note the exact rate of current flow to sustain that required temperature - over time.
6    We anticipate that this will be close of 2.4 amps.
7    Therefore I^2R = the required wattage to manage that required heat signature.
     This will represent the control setting.

9    We then apply the required number of batteries in conjunction with the required adjustments to the switch and offset settings
10  To match the same heat signature over the experiment as was evident in the control
      This will represent the experimental setting

11  We attach the same number and type of batteries in the control as used in the experiment
12  We adjust the resistive load to ensure that 2.4 amps or thereby is discharged when placed in series with that supply. 
13  The Ohms value of that resistor will be chosen and applied accordingly.
      This will represent the control test

14  We apply the element resistor on the circuit.
      This will represent the experiment.

15  We run both tests concurrently and measure all data including the rate of battery draw down - continuously
16  We will recharge both sets of batteries in series.
17  We will then apply the control batteries to the experiment and the experimental batteries to the control
18  We will then rerun those tests
19  This to ensure that there are no battery vagaries are associated with the previous results.
      Should the control supply deplete well in advance of the experiment in both test periods - then that will constitute a 'win'.

Does that cut it Poynty?  Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

CONDITIONS

Just for general discussion.  Here's what's proposed

.  That the protocols are approved by not less than 2 academics as unequivocal proof of claim
.  That all data is measured continuously through appropriate data loggers
.  That both tests are continuously streamed 'on line' for public verification of results
.  That there is sufficient continuous supervision of these results to ensure that there is no 'tampering'.
.  This in any event should be evident in the data logger and the filming of the experiments
.  That the function generator is not grounded

Add to this if anything occurs to you Poynty.

Kindest regards
Rosie