Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

You can't equate the state of charge of the battery with the battery voltage.  How are you so sure that the ambient temperature in your reference didn't change?  Do you think that Aaron ever ran tests of unloaded battery voltage vs. battery voltage at various loads vs. electrolyte temperature?  Do you thing Aaron ever ran tests of unloaded battery voltage vs. battery voltage at various loads vs. different states of charge of the battery vs. differtent electrolyte temperatures?  Do you think that Aaron ever took a fresh battery and gave it enough of a load so that over several hours the internal energy dissipation due to the internal output impedance would slowly raise the temperature of the electrolyte?  What if it was a not so fresh battery?   That way he could measure the unloaded vs loaded battery voltage during a moderate discharge cycle to see if the increasing electrolyte temperature could cause the loaded or unloaded battery output voltage to increase over time.  These tests would have to be run for different sizes of batteries and for different battery technologies.

I somehow doubt that he did any of these tests.  You know what they say, you have to do the experiments before you can make any assumptions about a battery's voltage creeping up by two one-hundredths of a volt over nine hours.  It could be nothing but "background noise."

MileHigh

Eastern Standard Time - what's that, GMT - 5 hours?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No.  He has not yet run an extended battery test.  I'm sure it will eventually be included.  But the time needed to do such tests conflicts with the short time that the Tektronix instrument is available.  So - my guess is that he'll use this time to capture data. 

Eastern standard is GMT - 7.  I must say I assumed you were European.   Anyway it's my time 3.21 and long past my bedtime.  Seem to have spent the day/night apologising all over the place.  Perhaps one day I'll be given an opportunity to accept an apology.  Have no idea what that feels like. 

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I was talking generically about batteries, not specific to this current project.  I am just trying to make the point that batteries are complicated animals.  I assume that you are familiar with the term "background noise."  There are times when you want to intelligently ignore the data that you are measuring.  Again, not necessarily specific to this battery testing or to battery testing in general.  I am just making just a global general comment about test and measurement and "background noise."

A simple example with respect to electrical circuits is that resistors generate real "background noise", white noise with a measurable power output that comes from the thermal energy soup that we are all living in.  If your signal drops to the level of the noise, then you don't necessarily know if the tiny spike you see is your signal or if it is the noise.

Rosemary, I will apologize to you because I know that I am guilty of being hard on you.  I honestly regretted that last jab I gave you because it was gratuitous and it did not contribute anything.  So I am sorry for that and please accept my apology.  I will try to reign in that tendency.

Honestly as a general comment I get the real sense that the contributors to these forums are good people and have good motives and want to make the world a better place.  That is very encouraging about the human condition.  Part of the disconnect or the "gap" or whatever you want to call it is that it may be hard to see that people like myself, .99, Hoppy, TK and others also want to make the world a better place.  When I heard about "cold fusion" in 1989 I almost cried.

The gap is quite wide and deep and I don't see it ever being closed because of the natural variability in the human condition.  Just about everything in Nature falls on a Bell curve with a mean and standard deviation, including people.  A "believer" sees Tom Bearden (for example) as a "good guy."  I see Tom Bearden as a "bad guy."  That's the gap.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The results can be replicated.

The results are pointless, meaningless, and not worth replicating.

The meter reads 0.000 not because the net positive and negative currents are equal, but because the circuit has been so severely choked back in operation that virtually no current at all is being consumed, hence the difficulty the meters are having in registering and displaying any kind of measurement.

.99

Poynt - just another quick point - you're talking nonsense.  Justify the loss of 0.8 watts on the entire circuit and I'll believe that you're looking at the whole picture.  Until then your selective perspective is clearly defective.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

I was talking generically about batteries, not specific to this current project.  I am just trying to make the point that batteries are complicated animals.  I assume that you are familiar with the term "background noise."  There are times when you want to intelligently ignore the data that you are measuring.  Again, not necessarily specific to this battery testing or to battery testing in general.  I am just making just a global general comment about test and measurement and "background noise."

A simple example with respect to electrical circuits is that resistors generate real "background noise", white noise with a measurable power output that comes from the thermal energy soup that we are all living in.  If your signal drops to the level of the noise, then you don't necessarily know if the tiny spike you see is your signal or if it is the noise.

MileHigh

I got it MH - first time.  Like I say - Aaron will probably do detailed tests when he doesn't also have the 'machine'.  And may I add - on this forum as well - our enduring gratitude to the good people at Tektronix who allowed the loan.  Thanks again Lisa.  It's now officially my time for bed.