another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You threaten, however veiled, to kill me, and you expect me to give you my address so your hired thugs can piss in my garden while running away from my perimeter defense system (three very protective dogs)?

You really are a piece of work.

And you really should keep your "bird-killing" threats to yourself, or you might find yourself in more trouble than you expect. I have witnesses to the post as you posted it BEFORE your edit.

Golly TK.  I could hardly expect you to give me your actual address.  That would, indeed, be reckless.  Just a service address will do.  Your attorney would be a safe bet.  Surely?  And I promise you faithfully that I won't attack you on anything other than purely legal grounds.  You can even keep your name hidden - provided only that you'll answer to tinselkoala in Court. 

Kindest regards TK
Rosie Pose

LOL.  And I assure you that I have no 'hired thugs'.  If I did I'd use them to help defend me here on this thread against this 'elite troll army' that I face, all alone.  But it's intriguing to see how frightened you are at the prospect of becoming accountable.  It must be nice to hide behind an identity - where you can say what you want - allege what you please - and absolutely get away with it.

[TinselKoala]

@ .99: Thanks for addressing my points. I was considering that one would match _power outputs_ of the DC case and the Ainslie case, by adjusting the DC voltage supplied to the (identical or exact same) inductive load during the heat profiles and battery rundowns, as I did in my time-temperature profiles of her earlier COP>17 circuit claims. But I now see that this is not possible in the present case, both for the reasons you state and for MH's reason: it's impossible to agree with Rosemary on how actually to measure the power output of her circuit conventionally. (But just between us, we know that the Clarke-Hess power analyzer can do it.)

@eatenbyagrue: I'm disappointed that you choose not to answer my direct questions from some posts ago. But not really too surprised, ttytt. Now... PWM. Thank you for your "coals to Newcastle" explanation. As .99 has pointed out, nothing beats straight DC for efficiency. The advantage of PWM controls can be clearly seen --- and its efficiency understood --- if you compare controlling the speed of a DC motor using a simple wirewound rheostat in series with the motor and battery, against using a PWM controller. Since the rheostat will be dissipating power as heat, that power won't get to the motor even though it's being drawn from the battery. By using PWM methods, the dissipation of power in external components is minimized. The motor still runs with the same torque at the same average power at the motor windings, roughly, but less power from the battery is wasted in heat. Therefore the PWM circuit is "more efficient" in that sense.
But if you want to run your motor flat out.... crank up the PWM and look at the waveform it puts out: most will default to straight-through DC at full power settings.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I will be satisfied if the RAT circuit operates as I stated in my proposed protocol. If it can provide substantial power to the load for 50% longer than the control in BOTH runs, then it is a winner. PROVIDED that the RAT circuit maintains an equal or better temp profile compared to the Control.
Depends what you mean by "efficient". If you mean how much power is delivered to the load compared to how much is wasted, then nothing is more efficient than a DC source connected directly to a load. Rosemary's circuit is at a disadvantage compared to the Control, simply because there are MOSFETs dissipating (wasting) power that is NOT getting to the load.

If that's not what you mean, then please explain.

.99

Poynty Point?  What is the RAT circuit?  I understood that the RAT circuit was a variant of the NERD circuit.  Does RAT stand for Rosemary Ainslie Technology?  In which case I'm afraid you may NOT call that circuit the RAT circuit.  It wouldn't be right.  It absolutely does NOT belong to me.  Go back to calling it the NERD circuit.  That's the name that the collaborators approved.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And I see that Glen Lettenmaier's joined us.  I wonder if you'd confirm that you received that PM Glen?  I'm most anxious that you serve those papers as you promised.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

@Rosemary: Aren't you concerned at all about all the lies and misrepresentations YOU have made in this thread alone?

I have asked eatenbyagrue, many posts ago, to review the existing information concerning you and your claims. I asked him, after doing that, to point out exactly where I have said anything that is demonstrably false, incorrect, or not backed up by credible references. Then I asked him the same question in re _you_.

I'd still like to get an answer to those questions.

25.6 megaJoules in 100 minutes. 4200+ Watts, continuously, for over an hour and a half. True, Rosemary? Or not?