Ok Guys.  I'm exhausted.  I'll do the upload tomorrow.  But Poynty's right.  The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit.  But no ripples.  The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.

Math trace still negative.  Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact.  The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated.  I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found.  So it's not optimised.  But it's still interesting.  I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it.  Very chuffed with this result.  Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated.  Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally. 

But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted.  In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before. 

I'll also do a dump and give you those results.  I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without.  You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this. 

Anyway.  That's just about depleted my own energy levels.

Rosemary 

A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

I must say I wondered at this Poynty.  Your first depiction of a 'ripple' is the kind of waveform that I've seen on one of those really sophisticated 'clamp amp' meters where one can do a spreadsheet dump.  This pretty well flatlines at battery averge, but has a kind of really small hiccup at the switching transitions.  Yet more evidence that one cannot apply 'AVERAGING' as that, effectively is what that ameter does.  You actually showed this from one of your sims.  At that stage of your argument, you also stated that the kind of oscillation we're seeing is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the wire.  You see if, by 'ripple' you also meant that really robust oscillation across the battery then this is definitely NOT the classical use of the term.  I'll post a Wiki definition hereunder.  But I do concede that you subsequently posted a sim showing - more or less - what we're seeing now.  But as this is also more or less what I've always been seeing - then I'm also happy that current definitely IS going through the battery as you ALSO at first denied.  And that's the WHOLE of my point.

So.  Let's try this AGAIN.  It is NOW evident that the battery voltage is indeed both returning current to and being delivered from the battery.  What this indicates - at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - is that the battery is also DISCHARGING and then RE-CHARGING.  This voltage is at 180 degrees anti phase to the voltage across the current sensing resistor.  It is the explicit advantage of that phase shift that INVARIABLY brings the instantaneous analysis of power delivered/dissipated - to COP something far, far, greater than 1.

I'm curious to know when you and your 'dogs' get to address this point - Poynty.  Because when you do - then, and only then, will I be inclined to believe there's some integrity left in your ENDLESS DENIAL of these results.

Rosemary

WIKI DEFINITION OF RIPPLE - somewhat at variance with your own.

The most common meaning of ripple in electrical science, is the small unwanted residual periodic variation of the direct current (dc) output of a power supply which has been derived from an alternating current (ac) source. This ripple is due to incomplete suppression of the alternating waveform within the power supply.

ADDED

another edit.  included the word 'current' or Poynty et al would accuse me, yet again, of not knowing whereof I speak.  Golly.  I need to be really, really, careful.

So Guys - to get back to this point.  You will recall that my advices were to change the probe positioning.  Neptune - I think it was - told me how to do this.  Much needed as I'm VERY SLOW on the uptake.  In any event.  I've now done this.  Recall too, how Poynty said that this result would then be 'DEFINITIVE'.  He was denying that the current flow from the shunt even REACHED the battery - let alone moved through it to recharge it.  All that energy was claimed to be the result of 'spurious' measurements of inductance on the wires.  They were right - in part.  There's a definite drop in voltage.  And frankly this is a welcome result.  I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for.  In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.  So.  For that I am MOST grateful.  I think Harti also endorsed this requirement.  Most grateful guys.

BUT.  And this is the point.  We still have that really robust oscillation.  We also now KNOW that it is recharging the battery.  Therefore CORRECTLY the amount of energy that is delivered to the battery is still GREATER than the amount of energy first delivered BY the battery.  And that's EXACTLY what's needed to prove that we can 'recycle' a current.

This - for those of you who are still wondering - is EXACTLY THE POINT where we deviate from classical prediction.  The assumption has always been that the actual energy delivered from a supply is PRECISELY the same energy that this then DISSIPATED as heat or work.  It's expected to be LOST.  Where my thesis is at variance is RIGHT HERE.  The thesis requires that the energy delivered from a supply returns to the supply.  That energy is measured as imbalance or potential difference.  It results in a depletion of that imbalance or that potential difference.  By the same token - the energy that is then induced on the circuit components is also POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  That too needs to return to it's source to deplete that imbalance or that potential difference.  But they're two different energy supplies returning to their own energy supply sources.  In effect, inductive and resistive components have the material properties required to become energy supply sources - all on their own.  And this potential is actually endorsed in Einstein's mass/energy equivalences.  It's just that on inductive/conductive material that energy potential is also electromagnetic energy. 

The fact that this is right is also WHY my threads and my thesis are invariably 'attacked'.  Because once this fact is understood - widely - then you will also ALL realise how easy it is to defeat those thermodynamic laws as it relates to the transfer of electric energy.  And that is actually the object of ALL THAT CRITICISM against me, our technology here - and our hopes to getting this accepted by mainstream.  It's going to put paid to the need for all that grid power.  And God alone knows how they'll justify the use of petrol driven cars - when an electric car can also enjoy precisely this advantage.  So.  Day and night - certainly for as long as they can - the Cheeseburgers and their kind will try and silence us - or embarrass me - or whatever they can manage to avoid the general spread of these truths. 

Luckily - I'm still hanging in here.  Just wish more of you would see this.  I assure you that Hamburger et al - MOST CERTAINLY DO.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened.  I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens.  I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.

Regards,
Rosemary

hi Rosemary

...battery caught fire?

no - you must be imagining it**!!!!      LOL

hope you & equipment all ok!


(** Poynt99 will simulate your circuit again later...  i'm sure he'll be able to assure you that your battery could not possibly catch fire)


thought you might be interested in the following link about recent discoveries relating to magnetic 'current' (if you haven't already seen it):

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69822/title/Magnetricity_behaves_like_electricity


PS  it would be helpful (and responsible!) to people attempting replications of your system to make them aware of any other issues which you've found which have resulted in damage to components and/or equipment


kind regards
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for.  In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.

Well right there is a damning statement direct from your own lips. You could not get the number you were looking for from the results so you omitted those "spurious" results from your report. This is generally considered amongst scientists with integrity to be "rigging the results to fit an agenda". Now we have proof you were knowingly and deliberately engaged in this. Thankyou.

What's happened to all that integrity?  It's a sad day when you have to invent facts to duck an open admission of error. 

golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened.  I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens. I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.

OK... So your using the fact that your sealed maintenance free silver calcium batteries caught fire as "proof of energy". Yes Rosemary, a battery contains energy

I have seen this lots of times in these types of batteries, it is not uncommon. Normally it is not caused by incompetent wiring, as the people who work on these batteries know what they are doing, as it's dangerous! These batteries are perfectly capable of catching fire in a standard DC circuit that is COP<1.

So what "proof of energy" are you implying ?

Oh yeah, you have typed lots of words and completely ignored Cheeseburgers perfectly valid questions in reply #527. Why ?

RM