another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

The RAT circuit can only be declared a "winner" if it continues to run for ever,

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.

outperforming the control is not the issue as a switched circuit is more efficient than a continuous DC signal.

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

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.

Well, I certainly agree.
I wonder why, in all the Ainslie reports and attempts at publication, we +never+ have seen a graph even remotely like this one below. You know... given Rosemary's clear difficulties with arithmetic, algebra, and dimensional units (like time, length, charge, and mass) and interpreting oscilloscope displays, I doubt if she even understands plotting data on a graph or how to interpret one.

[MileHigh]

I can see that Evolvingape is getting it.  I said a test like this would be a mess and you can already see it starting.

I am assuming that once you get the 'magic oscillations' going on the RAT circuit that you don't want to disturb it.   Then it gets tricky because it's not trivial at all for the control setup to dissipate the same amount of power as the RAT setup.  In theory the only way to determine the power dissipation in the RAT resistor is to thermally profile it.  You can't do a 'real' power dissipation measurement electrically.

There are simply too may catches and pitfalls.  You are going to go nuts trying to ensure that the RAT and the control dissipate approximately the same amount of power during the test.  I think that TKs proposal is the one to go with with just one slight tweak:

Charge your six batteries.  Then run the RAT off of three of the randomly selected batteries for one full week non-stop.  Voltmeter and digital clock in the webcam frame.

Rosemary, put the setup on top of a bunch of bricks if you have too.  Stop the alarmist nonsense that the system will go into meltdown and somebody has to watch it all the time.  You just need the setup running on a webcam with a digital clock.  Run it for one full week.

Then do the lightbulb test on camera.

Then taking the SAME lightbulb (the slight tweak) power the lighbulb with the other three unused batteries.

Then recharge all of the batteries and shuffle them and run the same test again.

In summary:

1.  RAT test with the inductive resistor for one full week with battery set A.
2.  Battery set A powers bulb until voltage drops to cut-off point.
3   Battery set B powers same light bulb until voltage drops to cut-off pont.
4.  Compare time 2 and time 3 above.
4.  Recharge all batteries and shuffle them and then do steps 1,2,3 above two more times.

That's a reasonable test without any hair-pulling over a control setup that's nearly impossible to match to the RAT setup.

Rosemary claims that the batteries do not discharge while they power the load resistor because her DSO tells her so.

The above test will take a month, or less.  If the batteries die before the week run is done then it's game over.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys,

It seems that I've unwittingly rather frightened our poor little tinselkoala.  Here's what he says I said...

Here she said, before editing, simply "The one bird is you"... meaning me.
Preserved for posterity.... and evidence.

And here's what I actually said...

Another reminder TK.  I'm most anxious to 'bring it on' - and indeed I dare threaten you.  Let us know your name and then I will be happy to engage with you - in a most appropriate manner.  Until then I put it to you that you are a coward - abusing your internet anonymity to destroy my good name while you protect your own.

Let us see the courage that you claim I lack.  Go on TK.  How about it?  I won't bother with Harvey Gramm, nor with Glen Lettenmaier - as I'm
not sure that I'd be able to even salvage my costs.  But I've got a shrewd idea that I'd do rather well off you.  Let's see whether you can manage
to defend yourself when the playing fields are leveled?  Or are you rather too frightened to put your word to the test in a court of law where such
things are usually managed?

Can't wait.  It will be the most entertaining experience yet - where I will be able to kill two birds with one stone and do so publicly.   The one bird is your interventions and the second bird is our unity barriers.  Both have outlived their value.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie

But I see why it is that he'd be frightened.  I weigh all of 115 lbs and am nearly 64 years old.  It would be enough to intimidate anyone.

My dear TK.
Can I impose on you to follow my own good example where I gave Glen a service address.  Could you perhaps PM me with a service address of your own? I got the distinct impression that you told me to 'bring it on'.  Am more than happy to oblige. For some reason you're not getting back to me on this.

Again,
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

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.

PERFORM THE TEST ON CAMERA. ANY of the tests .99, MileHigh, or I propose is good enough.

Or simply go back to explaining your 25.6 million Joules in 100 minutes figure. Do you realize that 25.6 million Joules DIVIDED BY 100 minutes ( or rather 100 minutes times 60 seconds PER minute)  is over 4200 Watts, and what that means? Of course not, but some of us do. A Watt is a Joule PER second, Rosemary.

Do you have electric heaters out there on the veldt? Look at the data plate and tell us what the MAXIMUM WATTAGE is of a South African portable electric heater. Please.

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.