Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

You state that there is an 'incredible and fundamental flaw' to this approach - with reference to my statement that the quantification of heat dissipated at sundry components other than the load resistor is largely irrelevant. This is perhaps because you are still unfamiliar with the thesis of that paper.

The object of the tests is to determine whether energy delivered by a supply source is dissipated at sundry components connected to the supply in line with classical assumption. Therefore - if the sum of dissipated energies measured on circuit components equals or approximates the energy delivered by the supply then that points to an equivalence in the transfer of energy - in line with classical prediction. However, if there is evidence that the amount of energy delivered is less than the amount of energy dissipated - then that points to a conflict with classical prediction which, in turn, begs the question.

Up to this point, it's mostly a repetition of what I've been saying and is common sense I believe, so no comment required.

The amount of energy dissipated at the load will then, theoretically, exceed the amount of energy delivered by the supply in the first instance. Then the sum of the energy dissipated at the load component will need to exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the supply. For this only one comparative measurement is required - provided only that the required excess is measurable. Any other components that may also have a measurable rise in thermal energy - is of interest - but is redundant to the argument.

Even if omitting necessary measurements was good scientific method, which imo it isn't, the load and supply measurements need to be accurate in order to make a valid comparison.

I trust this answers your questions.

No I'm afraid.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - no-one said that the omission of data is ever good scientific method.  I only pointed out that it's irrelevant to the thesis.  And my need for accuracy is apparently less negotiable than your own. 

Please list any outstanding questions.  I thought I'd answered them.

EDIT  I thought I'd answered them ALL.

[poynt99]

If you so choose, then yes you may get by without taking the MOSFET and shunt power dissipation measurements. Although you will not get the whole picture with this approach, it will be sufficient to prove or disprove your thesis based on the load resistor power and supply power alone.

What still stands however, is the requirement for these two measurements to be reasonably accurate and without question in order for the comparison to be valid.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What still stands however, is the requirement for these two measurements to be reasonably accurate and without question in order for the comparison to be valid.

.99

We've reached reasonable accuracy.  We're looking for perfect accuracy - as this relates to power from the supply.  We can work with up to 10% margin of error on thermal measurements - in view of the extreme comparative values but, in fact, have something like 3% accuracy.  Not the best but enough for purposes of proof.  But the power supplied needs to be fairly stringently evaluated. 

Poynty - when we've got that inductive value measured on the load resistor will you be up for that inductive reactance exercise that Harvey wants?

[poynt99]

We've reached reasonable accuracy.  We're looking for perfect accuracy - as this relates to power from the supply.  We can work with up to 10% margin of error on thermal measurements - in view of the extreme comparative values but, in fact, have something like 3% accuracy.  Not the best but enough for purposes of proof.  But the power supplied needs to be fairly stringently evaluated. 

This is where I strongly disagree. IMO no reasonable accuracy has been reached for the POS measurements. The load resistor is ok because it was determined using a CONTROL test, but the measurements for the power being supplied are unusable.

It comes down to the accuracy of the power output from supply (POS) measurement, and for that, an accurate current measurement is required. To date there has not been one.

Poynty - when we've got that inductive value measured on the load resistor will you be up for that inductive reactance exercise that Harvey wants?

I am not aware of this proposed exercise. If you explain it, I may be able to help out.

Here is a question if you'd like to answer one that was posed but not yet addressed (see last sentence):

Why not choose the -5.5W figure? That would yield a COP of more than infinity, and would indicate that not only is the COP=infinity, but that a net charge is going back into the supply with a net average current of roughly 220mA. In simple terms, this means that on average the supply is not sourcing any power at all, but is in fact gaining charge. Running the circuit at this particular setting, it ought to be quite evident that the battery is readily charging up, yet the overall profile of the battery voltage in Glen's test clearly shows the battery voltage falling off over time. Glancing once again at the above table of results, one can see that in fact 19 out of the 21 measurements for POS indicate a net charge going back into the battery, so why did the battery voltage continue to fall over the duration of the experiment?

This was in reference to the test#5 results table.

.99