another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What the second part of that paper suggests is a possible solution.  But even that solution conforms to the standard model.  AND it conforms to the experimental evidence.  But it is not PEDANTIC.  It is merely a proposal.  And, in as much as it does not CONTRADICT what is evident - then it may be a valid proposal.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

I HAVE NEVER BOASTED SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE BATTERY POWER.  I don't even know what you mean.  I am talking about the evidence of the COMPUTED NEGATIVE WATTAGE that is measured on our circuit.  What on EARTH are you on about?
Regards
Rosemary

Really?

That more energy is returned to the battery than was first delivered by the battery.  This is evident in the computation of wattage based on vi dt - the product of which results in a negative wattage.

DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT HUGE SURPLUS OF ENERGY DELIVERED BACK TO THE BATTERY.

From your paper:

This results in an oscillation that is
robust and generates strong current flows that reverse direction, first flowing from and then back to the source and thereby alternately discharging and recharging the battery supply.

What may now be required is arevision of classical power analysis as the computation of
wattage returned to that supply results in a negative value,
which has little, in any, relevance within classical paradigms.

A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the
source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flowboth to and from the battery supply source.

This allows a current flow generated
by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to rechargeit.

Because the sum of the energy returned to the battery isgreater than the energy delivered, these test results appear to
contradict the requirement of a co-efficient of performance
(COP) equal to 1.

Infinite COP is defined as the
condition where more energy is measured to have been
returned to the energy supply source than was first delivered.

What we measure is that the amount of energy that has been delivered by the battery is less than the amount of energy that is stored and then delivered BACK TO THE BATTERY.

We correctly measure the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery in the first instance.  And we correctly measure the amount of energy that is returned to the battery during the 'off period' or open condition of the circuit.  The amount of energy that is returned - FAR EXCEEDS the amount of energy that was first applied.  So much so that we're left with the EXTRAORDINARY MEASUREMENT of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE

And then this contradiction:

We do NOT recharge the battery.  What we manage is to NOT DISCHARGE IT.

 

IF the inductor STORES ENERGY then we would NOT get more energy returned to the battery than was supplied BY the battery. 

Therefore the battery is NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ANY CURRENT FLOW.

How then could energy EVER be delivered to the circuit?

The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain.

That's precious. If the scope probes are on the Drain and Source rails, then they most definitely are not DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.

Again, sounds like your probes are on the proto board, not over at the battery terminals.

Effectively what has happened - possibly as a first in the history of electronics - we have engineered a circuit that is not POWERED by the potential difference at the supply - BUT by the circuit components

That one is priceless. Why do you use any battery at all then? 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - I haven't got the energy at the moment to answer this new slew of misrepresentations.  But I'm REALLY pleased that you are FINALLY referring to our paper.  I will explain the significance of all your points - IN CONTEXT.  You manage to separate this with such extraordinary dedication.  But right now I'm due for some shut eye.  Hang fire there Poynty Point.  There's NOTHING I enjoy more.  But I'll need to defer that pleasure.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

I wouldn't trouble yourself Rosemary. The fact that you contradict yourself left, right and centre lends little credence to your responses....it's like closing the barn door after the horses have left. But if you'd rather dig that hole you're in even deeper, go right ahead.

In the meanwhile, I'm working on something you'll really enjoy! 

[poynt99]

And back to my question:

If we could separate the connection to the battery positive terminal from your circuit into 2 connections, one only allowing the battery to discharge (current from the battery), and one only allowing it to charge (current to the battery), based on your theory that the battery is receiving a net recharge overall, what would we expect to see in terms of current flow on those two paths?

In the present circuit, the two paths are in fact one. So tells us, what would we see....according to Rosemary?