Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 670025 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1440 on: June 07, 2011, 07:52:08 PM »
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......

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1441 on: June 07, 2011, 08:29:12 PM »
A re-post of the brief discussion on the polarity of power for sources and sinks.

Regarding the probes across the CSR; note the voltage across the battery and CSR are in reverse polarity, hence the power computation for sources sourcing power is NEGATIVE. Since the probes on the CSR are in reverse, the polarity of the power computation results in a POSITIVE figure.

Power coming from (as opposed to going to) a source such as a battery, will always compute to a negative number.

In the attached diagram, there is a simple example with one source (Vbat) and some resistive loads, R1, R2, and CSR1.

The electric field across any source is always in opposition to the direction of current through that source.

I have marked the direction of current in RED and the polarity of the potential difference across each component in BLUE. Note that the battery Vbat has a potential difference opposite to that of all three loads? Since power in a component is the voltage across it times the current through it, it's now obvious why a source will have a negative sign associated with its power. At the loads, the potential difference across them and the current through them are in the same direction, and hence the power associated with any load is positive.

Under normal circumstances, any power source loses or gives up energy, and any load gains or receives energy, so this is an easy way to remember what polarity the power should be in each.

SPICE does not do anything unusual by applying a negative polarity to any source power that it plots on its scope, because you can see that this is precisely how the math works out.

.99


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1442 on: June 08, 2011, 04:53:56 AM »
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



Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1443 on: June 08, 2011, 04:58:37 AM »
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......

TK - always delighted to hear that I amuse you.  Apparently laughter has a real therapeutic value - So.  Whatever I've contributed - that's a good thing. Your historical references are rather SKEWED - but why let reality intrude on all that good feeling?

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1444 on: June 08, 2011, 05:03:01 AM »
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.

PR1 and PVbat means:

Power of R1, and Power of Vbat, respectively.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1445 on: June 08, 2011, 05:17:08 AM »
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.

PR1 and PVbat means:

Power of R1, and Power of Vbat, respectively.

Well then?  How in HEAVEN'S NAME do you manage to show the battery voltage at a negative?  And I strongly recommend that you vary those references.  P = power and Probe positions - and potential difference?  What?  in the words of Nanny McPhee - 'BIG P - small fee'.  Very confusing.

Rosemary 

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1446 on: June 08, 2011, 05:33:59 AM »
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

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1447 on: June 08, 2011, 05:43:29 AM »
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

Golly Pointy.  I've tried to take all this seriously and my best efforts are now sorely taxed.  Where you SHOULD start reading is from the power supply SOURCE.  THEN.  In the unlikely event that that the battery reads a NEGATIVE potential or voltage - then - if you also read a POSITIVE potential over the resistive components - you've found the biggest ANOMALY recorded in science.  It is the SOURCE that applies a consistent potential difference across the circuit - to begin with.  IF AND WHEN the source is disconnected and the circuit is OPEN - then that APPLIED POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE REVERSES - as required by INDUCTIVE LAWS and widely referred to as BACK OR COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE.

Rosemary

added
Let me try this again.  The voltage drop - as you put it - across the battery has NEVER reversed.  It remains positive.  What happens is that it's potential difference is REDUCED or PARTIALLY DEPLETED.     

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1448 on: June 08, 2011, 05:52:07 AM »
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...

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1449 on: June 08, 2011, 06:04:32 AM »
I'm still trying to get my head around your argument Poynty.  Are you proposing that all measurements of energy now require that we take the positive flow of current from the shunt and multiply it with a negative voltage from the battery because it presents at the negative terminal?  Power measurements are based on vi dt.  Just ask yourself 'what is the actual voltage across the battery?'.  The actual voltage is STILL POSITIVE.  Therefore if the amperage is positive and the voltage across the battery is positive then you will INDEED get a positive product. That positive product will represent the amount of energy discharged by the battery.  And this, in turn should equate to the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit.  It's a net loss to the potential difference at the supply.  But it is still a positive value.  I'm not sure if all this is smoke and mirrors or if you are genuinely confused. 

Rosemary
Added.

And by the same token - if the amperage is negative then it is still a product of the battery voltage and that amperage flow - but it will now result in a gain to the potential difference at the supply as that product will be negative.  Golly.   It's NOT rocket science.  It's only elementary power analysis. ::) 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1450 on: June 09, 2011, 06:47:54 AM »
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   


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1451 on: June 09, 2011, 11:36:09 AM »
to whom it may concern:
Quote from: aaron murakami
The Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments
on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT
given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard
result
- but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT
explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me
is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up),
with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side
of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature
of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse
entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0
is over 1.0.

quote taken from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8247-tom-bearden-oil-3.html#post142994
emphasis added by me.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1452 on: June 09, 2011, 06:34:55 PM »
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

 ;D

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1453 on: June 11, 2011, 10:41:43 PM »
For this next installment, let’s begin by reviewing one of the last simulation test runs. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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;

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

Let’s look at this scenario with the simulation, and see how close the two measurements are:

Referring to schema01.png, note the green probe at measurement point 7 (ignore the CSR probes for now). scope16.png shows the battery voltage as measured from nodes 7 to 4 (GND). The peak to peak voltage is over 200Vpp, but after averaging, the value is a little under 71VDC. The averaging is done with the built-in function in PSpice, however the same result is achieved by measuring the same points with a DMM, with or without the utilization of a non-intrusive RC filter in front of it. The six 12V batteries add to 72VDC, but some voltage drop is expected due to the wiring resistance of 2 Ohms total.

So it has now been established that you can obtain a clean accurate battery voltage measurement as part of the INPUT power measurement, by using a DVM and non-loading RC filter (optional). Moreover, the battery voltage measurement can also be obtained using an oscilloscope channel by applying a running MEAN function to the resulting trace, and as long as averaging is performed on this measurement, the measurement probes do not have to be placed directly on the battery terminals. This applies to both a scope and DMM measurement.

More to follow.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1454 on: June 12, 2011, 03:53:40 AM »
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