You do make me laugh, that's for sure.
All this time.... don't forget that I've been following you since Naked Scientists, ha ha, where you tried to convince people who work in the industry designing MOSFET switching power supplies that you had a patent for some kind of invention .... all this time, and you still haven't shown a single proper battery load test or control experiment. You still haven't boiled a teapot of water for less cost than you could do with a straight DC immersion heater. You still haven't gotten anything accepted by IEEE and you still think you have "heavyweights" behind you. After all this time.

Who was the first one to show boiling water using your circuit, huh? Who first showed the errors in the original Quantum article circuit, huh? Who actually DUPLICATED your original heat vs. time profiles, using your original circuit and your mistaken duty cycle, that is, confirming that your entire experiment and the conclusions based on it were BOGUS due to the inverted duty cycle error? HuH? Have you conveniently forgotten the significance of that little fact?

You are the one who should THINK HARD, because you are really embarrassing yourself and you don't even have the wit to realize it. Let's see the article you are publishing. Your last attempt didn't go so well......

I'm getting rather tired of this Poynty.  There is, indeed, a school of thought that proposes that current from a battery supply source, flows from the negative rail to the positive rail in an anti clockwise direction - IF that's the point you're trying to make.  But the polarity of measurable potential difference at the supply is ALWAYS consistent with the direction of current flow - regardless of that electric field theory. And the polarity of that potential difference from a battery supply source is always represented as POSITIVE.  Therefore is the flow of current signaled to be greater than zero and the resulting counter electromotive force signaled to be less than zero. 

All we're interested in here is the sum of those two current flows.  Because what is evident is that this then results in a NET GAIN to that supply.  In terms of which, MORE current flows back to the battery to RECHARGE it than was first delivered to DISCHARGE it.  If you are now trying to argue that the positive - or clockwise current flow through a circuit - actually results in a recharge to the battery then just put a light in series with a battery and a non-inductive shunt at the battery terminal.  You'll see that the voltage across that shunt - on either side of the battery terminals will show a POSITIVE VOLTAGE or POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  And that resulting current flow will light the light and DISCHARGE the battery.

I don't see the point of those schematics and I don't see that your argument is relevant.  And Poynty?  What are those equations about?  You really need to define what you mean by P.  Is is meant to represent POWER?  Or PROBE?  WHAT?

Regards,
Rosemary

P1, P2, P3, and P4 are measurement points or nodes. These nodes are where the scope probes are placed in reference to the two equations.

P_R1 and P_Vbat means:

Power of R1, and Power of Vbat, respectively.

.99

How in HEAVEN'S NAME do you manage to show the battery voltage at a negative?

Start at node P1 and follow the + and - signs in a clockwise direction. By the time you arrive back at node P1, you will have noticed that the voltage drop across the battery is reversed wrt the voltage drop across the 3 resistors.

.99

tk...  you're back, good. we have some unfinished business, you and i... and you owe me a mea culpa...

who was the one to use the worst possible scientific method and yet still called it a "replication"? it was a pathetic hack, nothing more...
who was the one that said using a different transistor wouldn't make one whit of a difference? and then you lied and squirmed about what 'difference' meant when your error was made obvious by experiment.
who was the one who left in a fit of  profanity declaring they were "done"?

YOU are the one who should think hard tk... YOU are the one who embarrassed themselves in this thread previously. that's why you left in a fit of profanity remember? because you couldn't answer to your contradictions i had pointed out. you knew you were checkmated, so you swore up and down like a spoiled child and ran home to mommy... and now you're back... imagine that.

the ONLY measurement you should be concerned with tk is the one bruce so kindly pointed out to you. that is, your measure of character. which at the moment is at the bottom of the barrel due to your lies, misrepresentations, your hoaxes of the community ala the magnet motor hoax of yours...  etc, etc. etc. ad nauseam, ad infintum...

I can scarcely remember a single day in the last year and a half that I haven't woken up to another post that gets me into a panic.  What I've discovered about the average internet forum member is, on the whole, something that I would rather have done without.  What is is on record, however, is that I fought my corner against an unwarranted attack - on a scale that has  never been equaled, on any other person.  And I'm proud that I managed this - even if I'm now somewhat the worse for wear.  What matters is that this technology of ours has survived that attack.  And the reason I kept at it was simply because I thought it mattered enough.  If our rather fickle members were to ignore this evidence - that was fine.  But if they were to be persuaded that there's nothing here - then that would be tragic.  Because one expects the majority of the members here to care enough to promote free energy.  And because UNLIKE ALL OTHER CLAIMS OF UNITY BREACH - our own technology is CORRECTLY MEASURED and CORRECTLY REPORTED.

And I am glad now that all those flamed threads are preserved.  It will be an enduring indictment on the mindset of you horrible forum owners who have all co-operated to try and kill off this technology.  If you had ANY intention of promoting new and clean and green technology - then you should, AT LEAST, have moderated my threads.  Not locked them and banned me as you all did when I tried to fight that corner. 

And then - there's also the simple truth that I was also followed by stalwart - BRILLIANT - thinkers who also fought a rear guard action.  Wilby and Pirate are just two that spring to mind.  And then - which is also something that heals the hurt - is the ENORMOUS off forum support that I was given.  But it would have been nicer if it had also been a bit more conspicuous.  But I know that to post here is to invite an unqualified attack and there really are NOT that many people who have the interest or the appetite for this.

Anyway - for those who complained - this thread is DEFINITELY winding down.  I only need to post our paper here - which I will do after submission and acceptance.  And to the many readers here - that's a good thing.  Because when that paper is finally published then there will be so much news about so much exciting technology - that these forums will fade into history.  I would very much like to be around when that happens.

Rosemary   

thanks for that reminder Wilby.

I'VE FINISHED MY PART OF THE PAPER.  Just tedious editing from hereon.  But that I can live with.

WHAT A RELIEF.  We should be able to submit by Wednesday next week - IF NOT SOONER.

Regards,
Rosemary

 

Referring to schema07.png and the associated scope shot scope13.png, we see that when the oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the terminals of one of the six batteries, the scope trace is essentially a flat line at the 12V level, indicating the battery’s DC voltage reading.

Poynt.  There have now been many people who have now replicated your FIRST schematic.  That schematic is based on A SINGLE battery - albeit at 72 Volts.  What they have all found is that the battery voltages oscillate through extreme values.  It has also been replicated by experimentalists who have ONLY used a supply battery - even to drive the switch.  Those tests ALSO show that the battery OSCILLATES.  The test was first replicated on Simitrex? (I think it's called).  THAT also was represented by 1 battery supply.  it also OSCILLATES.  ALSO.  ALL our tests with the probe placed directly across the battery terminals OSCILLATE.  WHERE then, does that 'FLAT LINE' you now claim - come from?  Is it a theoretical assumption?  Is it an an IMPOSED condition?  Because it certainly is NOT consistent with the experimental or simulated evidence.  And isn't that the point of simulations?  But whether it oscillates or NOT - is IRRELEVANT.  If the sum of the voltage across the CSR is negative then a product of this and the battery voltage will ALSO be NEGATIVE. That's all that's required to give an INFINITE COP.  And the sum of the voltage across the CSR is INDEED negative.  So.  Your argument is INDEED SPURIOUS.   

Providing that the battery’s internal resistance is reasonably low (typically less than 0.01 Ohms when fully charged), the scope trace will be reasonably, if not perfectly flat, with no ripple caused by the circulating currents.

And then this? The scope trace is NEVER flat.  And our batteries are FULLY CHARGED.  Now you're progressing from SPURIOUS to FATUOUS as follows...

In practice however, there will always be a finite internal resistance, and at times when the battery is not fully charged, we may in fact see some small amount of ripple riding on the flat 12V trace.

...to downright FANTASTICAL. That 'ripple'.  Golly.  As a gentle ocean wave is to a tsunami is that proposed 'ripple' to that ACTUAL OSCILLATION.  Which makes your following points somewhat understated, utterly misleading and ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE.   

Depending on the currents being drawn from the battery and the battery’s state of charge (SOC), the amount of ripple might vary from a few millivolts, to several hundred millivolts. In most cases, the ripple won’t exceed 1Vp or so.

You wish.   

Generally speaking however, when measuring the battery voltage on a loaded but charged battery, the resulting trace will essentially be a flat line at the voltage level present directly on the battery terminals. For all intents and purposes, this voltage is “pure DC”, and will be referred to as “DC” from this point forward.

And there you have it.  Inference based on assumptions and then proposed as FACT.  All that does is shoot science in both feet - then in the knees - and then WHEN IT FALLS OVER - you kick it in the teeth.  Science is based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  NOT ON FABRICATIONS AND NOT ON ASSUMPTIONS.

Reviewing the methodology involved in obtaining the measurement of average input power, we have:

Pi(ave) = AVE[VBAT(t) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;

Then you give us this?  Pi is WHAT?  P IS POWER.  It is not USUAL to multiply POWER with 'i' or CURRENT.  POWER is the product of volts x amps.  And what - in heavens name is 'ave'?  If you mean average then its usual abbreviation is avg.  'ave' is how Romans greeted each other long, long ago.  And if you mean Vbat avg then you cannot also append (t) because t is TIME and it CANNOT BE BOTH AVERAGED AND CALCULATED IN REAL TIME.  And while VCSR/CSR may have merit - the fact is that you CANNOT use the average of the battery voltage unless you ALSO apply the average of the current sensing resistor.  Therefore nor can you apply (t) to your VCSR/CSR.  Followed by more SMOKE AND MIRRORS....

Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the instantaneous battery voltage, and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.

  That is absolutely NOT what your equation reads.  What your equation proposes is that you take the product of the average volts and the current flow measured at the current sensing resistor - then you multiply this with the amperage AGAIN - for some reason best understood by yourself - then you continue with this multiplication exercise by tracing multiple samples of the current flow through a full cycle.  And all that will give you is GARBAGE IN compounded with EXPONENTIAL GARBAGE OUT.  And so it goes...

Then to those 'words' - repeated here lest we miss the significance.

Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the instantaneous battery voltage, and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.

WHAT is INPUT POWER?  Power is either delivered or dissipated.  INPUT into where?  The battery?  The circuit?  What?  And WHEN IS POWER AVERAGED?  Power is computed.  That's it.  IT IS NOT AVERAGED.  You can, perhaps, 'round off' the amount of power then represented as JOULES which is based on the wattage delivered over time.  But POWER - Poynty Point?  That's not a term you can bandy around, dressed in your preferred frame of reference.  Not unless you are upending classical protocols. 

For the moment, we will acknowledge that the CSR value will vary (due to the presence of 200nH of parasitic inductance in series with the CSR, as shown) under the conditions of a high frequency current through it.

And so the farce continues.  The CSR value varies DUE TO THE IMPEDANCE AT THE APPLIED FREQUENCIES.  You are confusing your terms. And that there are conditions of 'high frequency' as you mention - then that also implies a switching or 'reversing current'.  Are you saying that this reversal somehow STOPS when it gets to the battery?  That would be a first for the books.  Something that would rivet the attention of the ENTIRE scientific community.

Knowing that a properly measured battery voltage will result in essentially a flat DC trace, we can slightly alter the above power equation to the following:

And then the innuendos.  The 'properly measured' battery voltage? By implication our measurements are not 'proper'?  Golly.  That means that our beautiful little LeCroy and that Tektronix - are NOT properly measuring those voltages?  And that all those scope shots that have been taken are PURE FABRICATION?  And only your claimed and badly qualified AVERAGED voltage with it's never actually seen or measured 'splash and ripple' are, in fact CORRECT? And all this nonsense followed by more nonsense...

Pi(ave) = AVE[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], or in words;
Average input power is equal to the average of the product of the battery voltage (in DC), and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous voltage across the CSR.

Poynty.  SPARE US YOUR EQUATIONS.  They're HOPELESSLY FLAWED.

And then to your conclusion.

From this we can see that the DC battery voltage is simply a constant multiplying factor that is applied to the VCSR/CSR(t) factor in the power equation.

.Even as such it would result in INFINITE COP.  But it is WRONG POYNTY.  JUST SIMPLY WRONG.  Do not EVER try and multiply an average in real time.  It's either the 'ONE OR T'OTHER' - NEVER EITHER OR.  Average your current AND battery.  Or average NEITHER.

There are no phase considerations involved here because the phase angle between a DC voltage and any current (varying or not) is 0º.

This is getting boring.  There can INDEED be no phase considerations PROVIDED ONLY THAT YOU FACTOR THIS OUT IN AVERAGING OVER TIME.  So.  You're RIGHT - but more assuredly you are also ASBOLUTELY WRONG.

The COS of 0º is 1, and this means that the power factor associated with a DC source is 1. So although still valid, it should now be obvious that an oscilloscope channel is NOT required to properly obtain the required battery voltage for a DC INPUT power measurement! A digital voltage meter (DVM, DMM) placed directly across the battery terminals is all that is needed.

May I disabuse you here.  You may, indeed, if you wish to DENY the benefits or otherwise of phase angles - IGNORE THEM by AVERAGING.  But ignoring the evidence does not make it OBVIOUSLY right.  On the contrary.  It then becomes OBVIOUSLY WRONG.

What if we don’t measure the battery voltage with the probes placed directly across the battery terminals? Well, it turns out that if dealt with properly, this is not a huge problem at all. We know that the battery voltage should be essentially a flat line representing the battery terminal voltage. We also know that if we take a battery voltage measurement with the probes placed across two points that include any amount of parasitic inductance (i.e. battery wiring), the measurement points will show a considerable amount of ripple riding on the true DC voltage if observed with an oscilloscope. No problem.

Because we know that the battery voltage should be “flat”, we are permitted to apply a significant amount of filtering (or averaging) to the signal being measured across these two “displaced” battery measurement points. The result is a reading of DC voltage minus a small DC voltage drop across the battery wiring resistance. In other words, this voltage measurement will be extremely close to the same measurement made with the probes directly across the battery terminals.

No Poynty Point.  You do not KNOW that the battery voltage should be flat.  You are ASSUMING that it SHOULD BE FLAT.  Well.  It's NOT FLAT.  NOR DOES IT RIPPLE.  It oscillates - that tsunami thing again.  HUGE VOLTAGE VARIATIONS. 

I've just previewed.  This post is way too long and way too repetitive. I need to end it.
Regards,
Rosemary