another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[JouleSeeker]

Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99

So I see this result, and let me comment (without having read the entire thread!).
SPICE is a simulation package with Kirchoff's laws and conservation of energy built into the code (no doubt).

I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery. 

Now we turn to a real device -- just a simple battery and resistor circuit as shown by .99, and run the darn thing for 30 minutes, say.   The voltage on the battery right after the run will be down from the initial voltage, showing that it has lost some chemical-reserve energy; but from experience I know the battery will thereafter recover some of its voltage, in a rather short time.  So, I don't like this type of measurement as an absolute or particularly reliable way to measure the energy delivered by the battery, the input energy.

Rose, in an ou device, the output energy will be greater than the electrical input energy -- that's what we mean by ou.  (I think we can agree to that straightforward definition for starters.)  But a simulation package like SPICE cannot be expected to show an ou effect -- an ou effect has to be measured empirically in a reliable manner.

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

For the output energy, I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry.  Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you.  With water-heating by the load, one can use:

Q = C(H2O) * mass * (Tfinal - Tinitial),
Where C(H2o) = 4.186 J/g-DegC for liquid water.

Best wishes for your success in your empirical measurements.
Steven J

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99

This is NOT a CONVENTION.  Your P-Spice program is designed to ACCURATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE BATTERY.  In the same way that IF some circuit component then DISCHARGED counter electromotive force - then it would show the VBAT WATTS as POSITIVE and the discharge of potential difference as NEGATIVE.  You are looking at the SUM.  NOW.  IF you're inclined to believe this SUM - which is ON THE MONEY - then WHY do you ENTIRELY DISCOUNT THIS WHEN IT SHOWS YOU YOUR OWN RESULTS SITTING AT A NEGATIVE WATTAGE SUM over our oscillating circuit?  And again.  Why are you even arguing this point?

And DON'T then try and argue that the battery is DELIVERING a negative wattage.  IT SIMPLY CANNOT.  It's SUM is RESULTING in a reduction of potential difference.  That's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER. It is INCAPABLE of delivering a negative wattage.  UNLESS CURRENT IS BEING RETURNED TO THAT BATTERY to RECHARGE IT.  Now can you see why your PIN POUT REFERENCES are so utterly meaningless without a DEFINITION?

And Poynty Point.  This is NOT debatable.  What's at issue is that INDEED your P-spice does not ERR.  What errs is your own ASSUMPTION of the significance of that SUM.  You've ASSUMED a DISCHARGE OF NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW from a battery supply.  Can't happen.  No such animal.

Regards,
Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So I see this result, and let me comment (without having read the entire thread!).
SPICE is a simulation package with Kirchoff's laws and conservation of energy built into the code (no doubt).

Not actually Professor.  This is what's so surprising.  It appears to have been encoded with nothing more than Faraday's Laws of Induction.  Because when it simulates our circuit it actually DOES result in a NEGATIVE WATTAGE SUM.  Which, as we've explained in our paper - HAS NO RELEVANCE TO KNOWN PHYSICAL PARADIGMS - AND EVEN LESS WITH OUR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS.  I emphasise this because it's very significant.  It means that those simulation software programmers have entirely conceded that FARADAY trumps KIRCHHOFF - which was the subject of an inconclusive debate on Ponty's forum - led by the pretentious blathering of some one whose name escapes me. 

I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery.

EXACTLY.  It represents the SUM of depletion of potential difference.

Now we turn to a real device -- just a simple battery and resistor circuit as shown by .99, and run the darn thing for 30 minutes, say.   The voltage on the battery right after the run will be down from the initial voltage, showing that it has lost some chemical-reserve energy; but from experience I know the battery will thereafter recover some of its voltage, in a rather short time.  So, I don't like this type of measurement as an absolute or particularly reliable way to measure the energy delivered by the battery, the input energy.

Well again, not actually.  You will find that over time a battery will perform in line with it's watt hour rating.  And that much is ENTIRELY dependable.  The difference is only in that some batteries are designed to reliably discharge low current flows.  And others aren't that picky.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And before we entirely lose the significance of this.  Here's the thing.  In order for P-Spice to accurately compute the loss of potential difference at the supply it represents the SUM of the discharged current as a LOSS against the SUM of the energy dissipated at the load GAIN.  In the example that Poynty has used the SUM would be zero - which is in line with prediction and in line with Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  Else any sums that are done on this circuit would otherwise be misreprented.  In the same way if it were computing the energy RETURNED to the battery through counter electromotive force then it would COMPUTE the GAIN in potential difference at the supply and the loss of potential difference stored on circuit components.  It is showing NOT the polarised condition of a current flow but the EFFECT of that current on that all important SUM.

SO.  Back to our claim.  Your own simulation program - Poynty Point - shows you that when you do that SUM - the difference between the AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IS DISCHARGED compared to the AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IS RECHARGED - then there is a CLEAR AND EVIDENT GAIN to the battery supply.  I won't here argue the validity of that SUM.  JUST THAT IT'S EXTANT AND CORRECT. 

WOW.  That took 27 pages to argue.  Who'd have thought?  And this argument was presented as a JUSTIFICATION to deny us our PRIZE. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose

added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now Professor, to the balance of this post.  By the way (BTW) thank you for addressing this question as expeditiously has you have managed.  I suspect that had you been involved in the early chapters of this thread - as we had asked - then this question would have been put to bed much, much earlier.  But the truth is too, that I didn't realise the extant of Poynty's argument until he gave that confusing account which I posted on your own thread.   In any event. Ever onwards - and hopefully more to the poynt.

Rose, in an ou device, the output energy will be greater than the electrical input energy -- that's what we mean by ou.  (I think we can agree to that straightforward definition for starters.)  But a simulation package like SPICE cannot be expected to show an ou effect -- an ou effect has to be measured empirically in a reliable manner. 

Sorry.  We've covered this.  Again, rather surprisingly P-Spice DOES compute a negative wattage.

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery?  Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force?  And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.  So.  I wonder if I could impose on you to simply follow this convention that has the very real merit of complying to standard protocols - albeit somewhat more simplistically than I suspect you require.  Indulge me.

For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

THEN. For wattage or units of power delivered back to the battery supply - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  And here we'll get an average of the watts delivered per second and we can then use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered back to the battery supply source.

Just that much.  I'll get to the consideration of the energy dissipated at the load resistor thereafter.  Because the problem here is this.  We have more energy being returned to the supply source than was first delivered.  Which we've defined as INFINITE COP.  And the confusions are then even more extreme.  Because there is absolutely no energy that is being delivered by the battery as we've got open circuit conditions.  And as we all know, a battery CANNOT discharge energy unless it is connected to the circuit. 

You see.  There's nothing simple about this problem.  Perhaps if you could familiarise yourself with our paper you'll see the scope of the anomalies that we deal with.

Kindest regards, and thank you for applying yourself to this. Much needed if we're going to evaluate our results for that coveted over unity prize.
Rosie.