Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

MileHigh

Firstly I have no idea how power gets dissipated in a battery.  Then I take it that you're saying that 'up' the amperage or 'reduce' it below certain values then you get battery vagaries kicking in that change the battery ratings?  I'm sure no-one will argue with this.  But your deduction that the 'spike' does nothing for the battery other than to result in a 'resistive burn' may very well be due to your own vagaries of logic. This goes back to the first question here.  And the '75-volt spike party'? - that is the first time i've seen a number represented as a euphemism.

But that aside, experience and 'gut feel' have very little to do with the logic that you claim to apply here.  In fact I think the terms are mutually exclusive.  How does your 'gut feel' react to an evident increase in battery voltage?  Or an evident reduction in 'draw down'?  Is that the point at which your logic kicks in - and you decide that the facts are somehow belied by the evidence?  A sort of reverse logic that sits better with your gut feel? 

And then the 'sprinkle in a bit of ringing for seasoning'.  Again.  This is exactly the point where the voltage can no longer benefit the battery.  Surely?  But you add it?  I would have thought that this may account for the fact that one side of the resistor can be hotter than another even when it's positioned parallel to the ground.

And the MOSFET slave switch?  That's extraordinary.  If it is capable of returning energy to the batery then it has to have enough wattage to breach the impedance of the battery.  Can you somehow logically explain this?

And finally when can you be both wrong and right in any explanation?  Frankly, I preferred you when you were tired.  You were way more articulate then.

     

Edit.  Witsend

Rosemary,

The effectiveness of the spikes to charge a battery depends on the power they can deliver to the battery. We need current to charge a battery and when a spike 'hits' the battery, the peak voltage of the spike drops and the current increases. Accumatively the spikes are able to charge a battery at a rate proportional to the power used to generate them. It is widely acknowledged that the initial high voltage of the spikes does have the effect of desulfating (conditioning) a battery by lowering its internal resistance so that it is able to store more energy / increase its capacity.

The problem with this type of charging approach is that although the spikes may have a conditioning effect, the efficiency of the conversion process from low voltage to high voltage using an inductive switching circuit using an 'open' inductor such as used in the Ainslie circuit, is very low, typically around 50%, so there is absolutely no hope of getting an electrical gain in the circuit itself. The only hope is that as John Bedini and others claim, the battery can over a long period of time, be conditioned sufficiently to show a gain in capacity that can be shown to represent more energy gained than drawn from the supply used to charge and condition the battery over a controlled load test. My extensive load testing of Bedini SSG charged batteries has not conclusively shown that a true gain is possible.

Using battery terminal voltage depletion or gain as a measurement criteria for testing the Ainslie type circuit, is futile and will lead to results that will never be taken seriously by academics.

Hoppy

[hoptoad]

Rosemary,

The effectiveness of the spikes to charge a battery depends on the power they can deliver to the battery. We need current to charge a battery and when a spike 'hits' the battery, the peak voltage of the spike drops and the current increases. Accumatively the spikes are able to charge a battery at a rate proportional to the power used to generate them. It is widely acknowledged that the initial high voltage of the spikes does have the effect of desulfating (conditioning) a battery by lowering its internal resistance so that it is able to store more energy / increase its capacity.

The problem with this type of charging approach is that although the spikes may have a conditioning effect, the efficiency of the conversion process from low voltage to high voltage using an inductive switching circuit using an 'open' inductor such as used in the Ainslie circuit, is very low, typically around 50%, so there is absolutely no hope of getting an electrical gain in the circuit itself. The only hope is that as John Bedini and others claim, the battery can over a long period of time, be conditioned sufficiently to show a gain in capacity that can be shown to represent more energy gained than drawn from the supply used to charge and condition the battery over a controlled load test. My extensive load testing of Bedini SSG charged batteries has not conclusively shown that a true gain is possible.

Using battery terminal voltage depletion or gain as a measurement criteria for testing the Ainslie type circuit, is futile and will lead to results that will never be taken seriously by academics.

Hoppy

Having performed many experiments with high voltages produced by collapsing induction fields (circuit driven by battery sources), I concur : terminal voltage gain or depletion is a futile measurement criteria, without other corroborating data such as hydrometer (SG) and battery temperature readings, to name just two (of my cents worth LOL).

Cheers

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Hoppy and Hoptoad

To answer Hoppy first.  All science is based on measurement.  Regardless of the effectiveness of the spike to recharge - the evidence is that energy is being returned.  Assume an AC supply - the theoretical evidence is that the energy can still be returned.  Then it's benefit would be unquestionable. 

And Hoptoad - I agree.  We need to check the actual recharge of the battery - but our findings are that the discharge of the battery is consistent with the mean average voltage determined by the voltage across the shunt.  And this does indeed indicate that the battery can exceed its watt hour rating.  Better should I say that controls run in conjunction with the test and dissipating equivalent heat - indicate that the experimental apparatus out performs by a long shot.

Hope that's clear.  By my quarrel in the quoted post was really one of semantics.  And I rather regretted it.     Not strictly that relevant.
EDIT  And a quick point.  The only advantage to this experimental set up is precisely because we can measure the results.

[poynt99]

I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.

Here's something to ponder:

What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.

Here's something to ponder:

What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?

.99

good poynt

    Can I talk zipons?