Thanks Poynt.  Is that it?  Or is there more to come?  I don't really want to interrupt all this.

Regards,
Rosie

Poynt  - here's the problem.  In order to disclaim benefit you first need to prove that there's no oscillation through the battery.  The thing you've got to do is show that no current flows through the battery during the negative cycle.  Because - here's the thing.  IF the oscillation is evident across the battery then - no matter the positive or negative voltage across the shunt resistor - instantaneous wattage analysis remains as a negative wattage.  This is the result of the advantage in the anti phase relationship between the shunt and battery voltage.  You just don't seem to get it.  Read the point of our 2nd test. 

And I haven't even dealt with your contradictions yet.  Your first set of examples did not factor in ANY inductance between the batteries.  Yet the value was equal to your 'expanded version' where you did factor this in.  And we know it wasn't factored in as we did that simulation.  Yet now you DO factor it in and then you reduce that inductance to show a corresponding decrease in the wattage.  My question is this.  How come it now shows a loss where it wasn't shown earlier?   It makes me nervous that there are hidden factors here Poynty.  We really need to know ALL your applied measurement parameters. 

And finally.  It is absolutely an incontestable fact that we REQUIRE inductance in order to generate that second cycle of current.  The difference is this.  You claim that if you remove it you thereby remove some of the benefit in that gain.  We agree entirely.  We need that material in order to KEEP THE VALUE of the current equal to or greater than the current that was first applied from the supply source.  That was the ENTIRE POINT of this and ALL similar circuits that we've built.  Here it is again.  The thesis requires that the circuit material itself is the source of the extra energy that is evident in the negative flow of current through the supply.  The difference is only in this.  Before we showed that benefit as a 'spike'.  Now we show it as it really is which is an self-sustaining oscillation. 

Regards,
Rosemary

And guys, while I'm busy at this I wonder if I can remind you of the actual anomalies.  The fact is that the current that is being returned to the battery supply is equal to or greater than the current that was first discharged from the battery.  That is the point.  While this is consistent with simulations - it's also more glaringly evident on the experimental apparatus.  The fact is that this little bit of energy that is either gained or retained by the battery supply is able to 'cook' either our element or as is now being tested separately, the 12 volt automotive solder iron - at wattages that are measured to be upwards of 80 watts.  So.  The actual level of current flow does nothing to discharge the supply and does everything to heat the load. 

Regards,
Rosemary

You keep writing things and then skipping past the questions and so you go -  ever twisting Poynty.  Very slippery.  You REALLY need to explain this paragraph.  Where exactly are the probes?  If they're as shown in the schematic then they are NOT reversed.  And let us know which wattage value is right and which is wrong and WHY.  Again.  I see now that you claim that you actually DO reverse your probes across the shunt?  Still not sure why. Because they're correct as per your schematic.  What you say is that it's needed to 'establish a common ground'.  IF you've established a common ground then they are NOT reversed.  SO.  Back to the question.  Which value is right?  The +1.4 watts or the -5.4 watts?  They can't both be right.  Surely it would not involve that lengthy debate - that you complain about -  to indicate which value you think is correct.  And you absolutely CANNOT claim that they're both correct.  Here's the reference.

Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.

And here is the actual quote referenced above. 

"The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes)."  WHERE are they reversed?  Certainly they're NOT reversed on the schematic.

Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).

And this, with or without respect - is the single most absurd piece of nonsense written in the name of scientific measurement.  HOW exactly to you justify IGNORING the impedance on a known resistance and inductance of the CSR at the frequencies of that oscillation?  Unless you are now claiming that classical measurement protocols are WRONG?  I'm sorry Poynty.  It's one thing to attempt to balance out the measured power values.  But what you CANNOT do is 'pick a number' that looks right.  The resistance of the shunt at 0.25 Ohms is most certainly WRONG unless you're using a 'pure' resistor in your schematic.  And you have NOT specified this. And then you are NOT replicating our circuit but simply designing a NEW circuit with different parameters. 

And so these contradictions continue.  On and On. 

Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

Nota Bene.  You clearly and unambiguously state the following.

This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation. Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.

Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.

Golly.  IF you eliminate the inductance and with a reversed polarity resulting from the reversal of the probe positions and assuming a zero inductance on the CSR and ......? .

This isn't a scientific argument.  It's a fantasy.  It's an attempt to redefine a circuit with measured inductances and measured resistances and then changing the known values and substituting it with all with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to build experimentally.   Why?  And why should we take your proposals seriously unless you first explain this?  I assure you that there is no-one will understand you Poynt - unless they're telepathic perhaps.  Because what you're writing is confusing and contradictory and no longer bears reference to the actual circuit that your simulation should be simulating.

Regards,
Rosemary

And Guys, I think the most of us know that this inductive 'kick back' has benefit.  But the actual questions here relate to what actually affords this kick?  It's one thing to point to this HUGE surplus of energy over anything previously predicted - but WHAT in fact, is the source of all that energy?  I would propose that it's long overdue that the properties of current flow actually get evaluated.  If these results of ours are correct - then we really do have a problem.  Because whatever is responsible for heating our heaters and lighting our lights is clearly NOT related to the depletion of any property in the current itself.  This is now shown to come from a source and to return to that source.  And depending on how it moves, depending on it's polarity or its direction - it can either recharge or discharge that potential difference without any real material loss as required by our concept of energy 'dissipating' at the various work stations on the circuit.

Then there's the questions related to that oscillation.  What precisely enables the continual 'imbalance' that also seems to generate a perpetual resonating condition at such high values.  The current from the battery induces a potential difference over the circuit materials that then induces a potential difference at the supply - and so it goes.  Never do either the circuit nor the supply seem to find that required balance that is the actual known object of charge flow.  Could it be that there are two separate current supply sources and never the twain do 'mix' - so to speak?  Because that would indeed explain why the oscillation perpetuates itself.   

Lots of questions.  I just wish the debate could move there instead of this incessant need to question the results that are - now - no longer contestable. 

Regards,
Rosemary

A summary of the detailed analysis performed thus far:

In order to more fully explore the subtleties of this circuit, the battery array and battery jumper wiring was included in the diagram, and hence in the simulation. The jumper wiring adds a total of 2uH inductance (5 jumpers x 400nH ea.) to the battery circuit. In addition, the DC feed wires from the battery array (RED and BLACK) to the MOSFETs and Load Element mounted on the perf board, were broken down into 3 wire segments, each with an inherent inductance of 1.1uH and resistance of 0.33 Ohms.

So the expanded DC feed wiring still exhibits a significant magnitude of total inductance (3.3uH) and resistance (1 Ohm) in keeping with previous diagrams and simulations, with the exception that about 1/3 more inductance was added at Rose's request. The previous total inductance was 2uH in each leg, now there is 3.3uH. The battery jumper wiring has a total of 2uH as previously mentioned.

From here, battery voltage measurements were taken across several points in the battery wiring part of the circuit. When multiplied with the CSR probe voltage, first the instantaneous, then average INPUT power was reiteratively computed for each battery voltage measurement point, and displayed in the many scope shots. The battery voltage measurement points start at node 7 shown on the diagram. This is the voltage measured at node 7 in reference to the GND BUS node 4. From here the battery voltage probes were moved progressively to the left (on both the RED and BLACK wire simultaneously) in the schematic such that the wiring inductance effects on the battery voltage measurement become evident. After 4 measurements, the battery probes end up located at nodes 1 and 3. At this point, the battery voltage is being measured across the battery/jumper array and the CSR inclusive (see "schema04.png"). This measurement point eliminates the effects of the inductance and resistance contributed by the RED and BLACK battery feed wires. Because the interest is strictly in the battery voltage alone, the bottom battery voltage probe was moved to node 2 in the schematic (see "schema05.png"). This now eliminates the effects of the CSR resistance and inductance on the battery voltage measurement. Throughout this progression of battery voltage measurement points closer and closer to the battery array, it was shown that the net battery power, although negative in polarity, was decreasing in magnitude with each progressive move closer to the battery array. Note, for each and every measurement throughout the exercise, the CSR probes remain across the CSR unchanged.

Next, it was explained that a valid INPUT power analysis can be performed by measuring only one of the six batteries in the array, assuming that each of the six are in a similar operating condition. Combining the voltage measurement across the last battery in the array with the adjacent CSR voltage (current) reading, INPUT power can be computed. Total circuit power is computed simply by multiplying by 6.

The next battery voltage measurement was taken across the last 12V battery (VBat6) and its associated wire jumper (LJumper5). See "schema06.png". Here it is shown that the INPUT power still computes to a negative value (-3.8W) (assuming CSR=1Ohm).

Once again, because the interest is strictly in the voltage across the battery itself, the top battery voltage probe was moved down, eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance on the measurement and providing a direct measurement of the battery voltage alone. See "schema07.png". As a reminder, it is critical to keep in mind how the INPUT power is computed; PBAT(t) = VBAT(t) x IBAT(t). VBAT is the battery voltage (either a single 12V, or all six), and this can not include the voltage contributed by any stray inductance. It is imperative therefore to measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals; no jumper or feed wiring can be included in this battery voltage measurement.

With the battery voltage probes placed directly across the last battery (Vbat6), the battery power computes to about +1.37W. As a result of measuring the battery voltage directly, thus eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance, the battery net average power figure has actually reversed polarity. Previously, when "LJumper5" was included in the battery voltage measurement, the net average battery (Vbat6) power computed to about -3.8W. This is the most important point all ought to pay close attention to, because it clearly shows how the inductance associated with only ~20 inches of wire can completely skew the net average power computation.

Next, it was shown that the total net average power from all six batteries computed to -32.7W (-5.45W ea.) using the Wattage probe available in PSpice. Note that the polarity of this net average power is negative, and this is the correct polarity for a source that is sourcing a net power. If the battery source was receiving a net power, the polarity would have been positive. This -32.7W is the TRUE power being sourced by the six batteries, and the key word is sourced. The evidence produced from the simulation clearly shows that the batteries are not receiving a net power and are not being charged, despite what appears to be the contrary when the battery voltage measurements are NOT made with the probes directly across the battery terminals (i.e. with inductance affecting the measurement as is the case shown in "schema06.png").

The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png". From top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +. This is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure. The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact (for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)). The only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes; it allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.

The issue regarding the actual value that should be used for the CSR, is an issue that will be addressed in the next installments.

.99

"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.
 

Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.