Your proposed protocol as stated is a test to determine whether the RAT circuit will outperform the control circuit by 50%, while dissipating the same energy value at the load, and nothing more.

Indeed.

A test of the claim, which is COP = infinity must be a continual non interrupted run of the RAT circuit.

Please provide a quote or link from either myself or Rosemary that clearly indicates that the claim being tested with this battery draw down contest is for COP infinity?

You mean you are trying to find some "experts" who AGREE WITH YOU and your crazy "math". And you are finding it very hard, aren't you.

Why don't you just go down to your local university and go into the graduate commons pub. There will be PLENTY of young eager students in there who will, at first, listen to you politely.... and then..... find that they suddenly have a class to go to, or a hot date.... ANYTHING to avoid having to deal with you.

You really impressed Professor Kahn at CPUT, didn't you. Maybe HE'd like to review and endorse your math and conclusions.

If YOU can't find real academic experts.... I certainly can. None that are likely to agree with your math and other conceptual errors, though.


Meanwhile... you had better hurry up and start testing. Right now, on the workbench behind me, I have a matched load running inside an insulated container of mineral oil, heating it up with MY "ains-LIE" circuit, the one I posted the pics of yesterday. I started at 1605 and a temperature of 23.1 degrees C. Using the waveform that you "think" isn't caused by the same thing yours is...... it's now 1708, about time to stop the test, and the temperature  is 67.8 degrees C. I'm heating up about 120 ml of mineral oil, specific heat 1.67 (that is, it takes 1.67 Joules to raise the temperature of one gram by one degree C).
So..... over the sixtythree minutes of the demonstrations, I have raised the oil by (67.8 - 23.1) = 44.7 degrees C. Multiply that times 120 grams (roughly) and then by 1.67, to arrive at about 8958 somethings, which I then FOLLOWING ROSEMARY"S EXAMPLE multiply by (63 x 60) seconds, to arrive at a staggering 33 860 786.4 "Joules". My batteries, as you know, are 12 volt 5 A-H and I've got three of them. So they contain (12 x 5 x 3 x 60 x 60) Joules altogether, or 648 000 Joules. IN THIS ONE TEST ALONE, I have far exceeded the battery's capacity ACCORDING TO THE SAME MATH ROSEMARY USES.
And guess what... that's right. On a no-load test the battery pack voltage is still over 37 volts -- in other words, BY ROSEMARY'S LOGIC, still fully charged.

Therefore, by the same reasoning, math and evidence that Rosemary cites, I have running RIGHT NOW on the bench behind me, a device that qualifies for the OverUnity Prize... and I've shown it FIRST in this thread.


 

ETA: by the time I finished writing this it's 1725 and the oil temperature is 74.2 degrees C... and still climbing slowly.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test. 

If she can do it that way, I demand the right to do it that way too... and therefore MY CIRCUIT actually outperforms her measly 25.6 megaJoules, since I calculated 33.8 megaJoules for my test.
 

Figure Captions:

Fig. 1:  Charging the batteries with an automatic regulated charger
Fig. 2:  The load Ext2, in a Fleaker, submerged in about 120 ml of oil (the load's volume is about 30 ml)
Fig. 3:  Another view of load in Fleaker
Fig. 4:  The load cell inserted into an insulated 1-liter beaker for the testing
Fig. 5:  Showing the hookup to the board's Ext Load terminals
Fig. 6:  Time-temperature data
Fig. 7:  The waveform used ("sorry about the light" tm) -- top trace FG, bottom trace mosfet drains, scope set as previously described, 1 kHz

Now... DO THE MATH on my data.


But please, do it Rosemary's way. And tell me when my prize will be delivered... I badly need a hut on a Mexican beach.....

Could I be a "tad out"? Let's see.... OH... yes. Where Rosemary multiplies her values times the number of minutes only, I have "mistakenly" multiplied by the number of minutes times the number of seconds... since the Watt and the Joule are defined by somthings happening "PER SECOND", not "PER MINUTE". So if I duplicate Rosemary and only multiply by the 63 minutes, I get only about 565 kiloJoules instead of the whopping 33.8 megaJoules. That's better... I didn't think it was getting that warm in here. And it's only around 2/3 my battery's capacity. SO if I can perform ONE more test, raising the oil to 80 degrees or so over an hour or hour and a half.... I'm home free, with proven OU. RIGHT? Or WRONG, Rosemary?

565 KiloJoules PER 63 minutes is only 149 Watts, a lot more reasonable figure. All the more reasonable as it only requires a current of a bit over 4 amps to provide it, and that's within the Mosfet's actual capability.

And it's still wrong, of course.

I guess you couldn't find a quote. See? Helps if you're on the same page. 

I never looked for a quote, it was clear you had chosen to respond to my post by dictating a condition in my response that you knew did not exist. Therefore gaining some illusionary advantage in the exchange. If a quote does exist then post it.
 
The experimental test must test the claim, if it does not it is a test of something else and resolves nothing.

 
Are you testing COP = infinity in a continuous test against a control, or are you stopping the test at a certain point and declaring a winner ?


One is a test of the claim, the other is a test of something else.


 
RM
 

@.99:

I had an interesting "adverse event" earlier. I was at a load oil temp of over 97 degrees C, and fiddling with the FG offset trying to find a setting where both Q1 and the Q2 stack were on alternately, to see if I could drive it even hotter. I was monitoring the current from the battery pack with a cheapo DMM and it was showing about 250 mA with the spiky signal I showed before. and by careful adjustment of the FG offset and amplitude I could get it to go to 450 mA or a bit more. So... I did, and then the ampmeter suddenly started showing more and more current, until about 4 amps indicated, then .... flatline. I scrambled to disconnect power and try to figure out what happened.
Forensic diagnosis: the Q1 mosfet failed due to too much gate voltage and/or overheat, and shorted out the entire stack-- but protected the Q2 mosfets by doing so. Apparently the surge also caused an open fault in the load inductance as well, because it no longer has continuity. I haven't yet opened the insulated container to see what's up with the load... I wanted it to cool off to see how long that took. Right now at 2214 it's still at 40.6 degrees, and the failure happened at 2010 with the load at 96.5 degrees C.
The board is fixed; I still have a few 830a's left to burn. The load... I was kind of fond of that little transformer. I don't know if I have an equivalent inductance handy, to resume testing.

I was a bit disappointed though. There was no smoke or fractured mosfets.