Hi Rosemary,

I can't remember if you were using vented or sealed batteries, but let me share a little insight.  I have a 640W solar array on my roof.  It charges 1600Ah of vented lead acid L-16 batteries.  Once a month, the charge controller will bump up the voltage and boil the batteries a little bit, cleaning sulfation off the plates in the process.  Consequently, once a month, I need to add a total of a gallon or so of distilled water to the 24 individual cells.

This was designed to run a specially optimized computer network in off-grid situations.  There is a little headroom left after the load is applied... 2A of continuous use worth, on average.  When I started building pulse motors and other aetheric based power devices, I used this free source of energy as my dipole to work from.  After about a year of such research, I am noticing that I need 2 gallons per month to top off the batteries.  Further, I am noticing that battery voltage stays higher than ever after sundown, and for longer.  Mind you, these batteries are pushing 6 years old, and I have never configured them to be charged by the radiant pulses... only to supply the source dipole.

One of my pulse motors in particular can push the voltage of smaller batteries too high.  If you leave a small SLA on for too long... bye bye battery.  I suspect the same "boiling" is happening until there is no viable electrolyte left.

What really tipped me off to what was happening, and what is obviously happening with your circuit was when I paralleled a 20V 1F capacitor with the 12V bus on my bench, which is paralleled by 30 feet or so of #14 AWG to the battery bank described above.  This particular cap was made for car audio, and has a digital voltmeter built into it.  I also have a remote display for the solar charge controller, that shows the voltage at the battery terminals.  To my surprise, with several pulse motors running, the cap showed a higher voltage than the batteries.  It occured to me that energy was essentially radiating in all directions possible out of those circuits, including back into the source dipole.  It took some head scratching to figure out just what was going on.  Now, I just smile, and add that extra gallon of water to the batteries every month.  I hope that helps;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard.

Hi Twin.  So IMPRESSED.  I never realised you'd had the good sense to disconnect from the grid.  I will follow in your footsteps when we can get our appliance onto our hot water requirements.  Can't wait.  But I'm miles away from that.  SO NICE TO READ THIS.  Well done. 

We've got those sealed battery numbers.  I'm just hoping against hope that we haven't buckled the plates.  It maybe ok as the plastic covers seem OK.  Just liberally impregnated with molten metal from our crocodile clips.  That was a wild 30 seconds or so. 

Take care and always a pleasure to see you around.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

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.

If you think that a deliberate and knowing omission of results in a published report intended to provide evidence to support a claim is not a misrepresentation of the facts then you do not understand the meaning of the word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misrepresent

1. To give an incorrect or misleading representation of.

As a result of this deliberate omission of fact it has taken over 500 replies in this thread, and a considerable amount of peoples time, to resolve the matter and establish it was an artifact of the measurement process.

Furthermore, I notice you have resorted completely to personal attacks on myself and my avatar, yet again. No attempt to resolve issues, or honestly answer legitimate questions. Why ?

RM

...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)

hi Rosemary, glad to hear you didn't get burned

that was just a good-natured 'poke' at Poynt99  - imagining him trying to simulate your battery on fire


thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators

regards
np
 
 
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

Ok guys.  The following two downloads show the two different probe positions.  The one on the battery and the other on the breadboard.  I'll download and then point out which is which - if it's not obvious already.

PLEASE NOTE - both waveforms substantially the same.  Just a variation in volume, so to speak.

Strange little variation of the usual waveform.  I didn't bother to tune it.  I just took the first evidence of that extended oscillation.  So.  It's NOT optimised.  I'll fine tune it all again, when and if my batteries are tested.  Feeling a bit too nervous to use them at the moment because I'm not sure if the plates have been damaged.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ok - peak to peak on the first is plus/minus 200 volts and the second is plus/minus 100 volts.  That's a pretty large difference.  I'll get back here with the spreadsheet data when I've done this.   

RESULTS on first      - 22.692908 watts (NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW A NEGATIVE WATTAGE)
RESULTS on second  - 14.514204 watts (STILL NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW THAT 'n' WORD.)


Heat dissipated on both tests show plus/minus 7 watts - but there's enough enough heat on the FET's and the heat sinks to possibly add another 7 watts.  So.  NEARLY THERE.

AND FINALLY - AS EVER
A channel 1 - CSR
B channel 2 - VBATT
C channel 3 - GATE
D channel 4 - DRAIN (here used for the math trace.  Math trace is product of CHANNEL 1 AND 2)

Okay...two different tests, two radically different input power reports, same output heat in load.  Only difference in the two tests is where the probes were placed.

As a scientist, what does this tell you, Rosemary?  The probe placement is certainly not changing the performance of the actual circuit, is it?  Only changes the measurement.  Which of the two measurements is correct?  Both?  Neither?

You should really think hard about this essential question.  It is extremely key to solving the mystery here.  Far more important than any of the more detailed questions below.

There are three other questions that arise in my mind from looking at the scope pictures and the numbers you present.

1)  How do the wattage numbers you give relate to any of the numbers shown on the scope face?  Can you explain how the numbers are derived.  They don't seem to be related to the scope's reported numbers in any way I can see.

2)  I notice that the VV red multiply trace seems to never go above the zero line, yet the "battery" trace is always above zero and the other argument of the multiply, the shunt trace, goes both above and below zero.  So there are clearly times when both numbers being multiplied are positive, yet the product is always negative.  This doesn't make any sense.

3)  Is there a reason you are using Cycle Mean instead of  Mean on the current shunt trace?  What is that reason?

Humbugger

Hi all.  Hope I got it.  The fire dragon bit the croc.

Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.

Stefan - WHAT are you trying to say?  The math trace is the PRODUCT OF THE CSR AND THE BATTERY VOLTAGE.  It is showing that product over a 500 000 sample range.  It is absolutely consistent with the graph off the spreadsheet.  I have NO IDEA what you're objecting to.  Perhaps I should have shown the math trace more enlarged.  It most certainly 'goes around' the zero crossing if that's what's worrying you.

Why do I get the impression that you're supporting the vapid objections that Cheeseburger keeps posing?  The settings on the scope meter are ASBSOLUTELY  CORRECT.  Rather ask what they are than STATE that they're wrong.  Next time I'll take the trouble to down load all those settings and show them to you.  Good gracious.  It's one thing to check if they're right or wrong.  It's an entirely different thing to STATE that they're wrong.  If you know this much then you must state WHERE they're wrong.  It's Poynty's and Cheeseburgers enduring hope that there's a fault with the measurements.  Do you share this hope?  If so, as mentioned - I be very happy to disabuse you of any such hopes.  It's very easy to show all the settings on that little scopemeter.   When I've had those batteries checked out I will do so.

Again.
Rosemary
 
Added.

And may I add that IF they are WRONG then the TEKTRONIX is ALSO ALWAYS WRONG.  Its numbers were always consistent with the LeCroy.  And I doubt that either company would then be quite so ready to offer the guarantees of accuracy - if they could so easily be WRONG.   It seems that all measurements are WRONG and ONLY your 'impressions' are right?  It's curious.

Yet again
Rosemary

Guys - I get it that we're all looking to find some means to defeat this energy crisis.  We're looking to the final depletion of all that oil that's fuelled our 1st world countries - certainly since the Industrial Revolution.  Its been the abundant source of energy that's provided our middle classes, globally with a rich and profligate excess of energy and wealth.  And without all that cheap fuel then we're looking to face up to certain really unwelcome austerities.  It will certainly introduce some chaotic instability in our financial and - probably also - in our social structures.

That's what these forums are all about - I would have thought.  That's on one level.  On the other level is the 'gathering' of some really good minds to see where and if we can exceed all those traditional constraints.  We all sort of share a quest to test some fundamental restrictions on the transfer of energy.

Then too we've also assumed that our forum owners are equally anxious to find such solutions.  Energetic Forum have dedicated whole chapters to this, as has Overunity Research and here on Stefan's forum.  But I wonder too - at the sincerity of that reach.  Does energetic forum simply advance the sale of some really bad science dressed up as some kind of esoteric answers to satisfy an eccentric fringe of society - and then enjoy that revenue?  And could it be that OUR.com is simply dedicated to denying the evidence of overunity - because that, in truth - is all it ever does?  And how committed is Stefan to finding solutions - when he too is so quick to deny the evidence on really, really thin grounds.  I think what I'm asking is this.  Stefan enjoys advertising revenues.  Would there be a continuing need for these or any forums if Overunity was proved?  Done and dusted?  I'm not so sure.

So.  I think the time has come that we put this sincerity to the test.  IF we are to take Stefan's credentials at face value then I'm entirely satisfied that he would be well able to measure and assess just about any experiment in order to evaluate its efficiency.  And IF he then finds any value that is, indeed, in excess of unity - then he would also be well able to promote some kind of application to capitalise on that technology.  More to the point.  One would expect him to bend over backwards to advance the use of that technology.  And in the light of the dire need for cheap and clean and green - then he would also be strongly committed to doing his damndest to make very sure that everyone within reach would hear of this.

Therefore -  this is a public CHALLENGE to him to get into a plane and come to Cape Town South Africa - and CHECK OUT OUR EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  The cost of that plane ticket will be a drop in the ocean compared to the potential return he should be able to make if there is even a 'grain' of truth in our claims.  As it is we've waived any rights to any kind of 'reward'.  Perhaps he can fund this from this budget.  This offer is made on the full understanding that he is free to progress this technology in any way he requires and that no-one on our team will challenge this right.  On the contrary.  We're rather anxious to promote it.  In the event that he takes this trip and then discovers that there is NO TRUTH in our evidence - then I will personally, here, undertake to refund him the cost of the plane trip. 

So.  Stefan Hartman - that's my offer.  It is all here for the viewing.  Come and see it.  What I've reported on these threads and on ALL these forums - IS PRECISELY THAT WE HAVE GOT INFINITE COP and that it is experimentally measurable and repeatable.  All you need to do is check out if we're telling the truth.  And if you are sincerely interested in advancing 'clean green' then I'm reasonably certain that you'd want to check out the facts.

May I remind you.  We are not talking about little dribbles of wattage.  It is EASILY able to produce enough energy to make applications immediately viable.  And you can come out ANY TIME YOU LIKE.  I would be able to accommodate you and your girlfriend - most comfortably - and you would then be able to spend as long as you want over that apparatus to determine its efficiency for yourself.

What I find absolutely reprehensible is that you continue with this DENIAL where you affront - not only my own veracity - but the competence of our team members.

Rosemary