You may be right about the battery type, but to date, I have never seen Rosemary make that a requirement, have you?

Rosemary suggested that smaller capacity batteries could be used. From a technical point of view, what is your objection to a 2 amp-hour battery?

Well, if Rose says it could work, then she is not sure of it. Its not a fact yet that it will work.  Details. 

There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?     

Lets say for example, we have a dime and the earth.  If we try to pump electrons into the dime and measured the current from start till full, and then we do the same with the earth, which test would have shown more current flow for how long? When dealing with HF AC and batteries, Im sure there are things to find out.

My casual point is, it may be easier for the larger batteries to take on a charge compared to a smaller battery, just because of the vast differences in the reservoirs.

With the batteries, I cant say this is fact or not.  But if the 2ah test does not work, those batteries will be in question. Better to do it right and gitter dun already. Then if it does work, if the interest was there to find out, try the 2ah and see if things are different.

If it doesnt work if you try the 2ah first, you dont really have the choice of not buying both sets of batteries to come to an absolute conclusion.


There is a name for it.  Ripple    That is the difference.  And it could be enough to make a difference in this circuit claim. So why take the chance? With so much invested already.  Its up to you.  I wont argue this any further. I dont have more reasons to.

Mags

Guys - NOTA BENE

. If, subsequent to publication of a paper - an author finds his claim is incorrect then he is required to withdraw publication
. This to uphold the principle and integrity required, not only of that published scientist but of claims related to all scientific findings
. Glen Lettenmaier - who here hides behind the identity of Fuzzy Tom Cat published the following on his Scribd File
. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
. This CLAIMS to be a replication of an earlier COP>17 test - as detailed in the introduction.
. He subsequently DENIES that it is a replication
. Therefore, by rights, he needs must withdraw that publication.
. I would STRONGLY advise anyone reading here to copy that opening paragraph
. This, because being unprincipled he is likely, retrospectively, to modify or delete this subsequent to this post.
. I have - pro temp - made my own copy of this.
. It unequivocally states that it is a replication of an earlier COP>17 test.

Therefore IF he is now stating that it is NOT a replication then he NEEDS MUST REMOVE THAT PUBLICATION.
Moving on

. You will notice that my name is first on that list of authors.  This indicates that I'm what is known of as 'first author'.
. As first author it is acknowledged that the paper was initiated, motivated and guided by me.
. I, in fact, wrote two thirds of that paper in conjuction with another author.
. Harvey Gramm wrote an astonishing one third of it -  related to entirely extraneous principles
. All of which should have been omitted or subjected to some kind of editorial paring as it was excessive.
. The results of those tests were averaged in an entirely inappropriate and non-standard convention which I resisted.
. This was done deliberately to average the results down as they were, in fact, greater than the stated COP>4
. That paper was rejected.  We were required to submit to TIE within the IEEE group of publications.
. This required a rewrite which paper was then published on my own Scribd file.

added

Guys - those are the facts.  It would entirely dominate this thread to engage in a discussion of it.  I'm only recording it here as my rights to advise you all of my own position and under some crying need to do something to salvage this history and my reputation along with it.  I am entitled to defend my good name.  It would have been easier for me to make this information available under PM's to Magsy - as he has asked for clarification.  But I wanted no part of 'whispers'.  Therefore have I made my stance public.  As Glen is trying to dominate this thread with his own opinions.  It is as clear as daylight that the man is utterly unprincipled and that he is trying to kill off this thread.  I assure you all.  Those of you who object to his continually posting about the issue from whichever stand that he tries to occupy - that the ONLY way to manage this is to IGNORE his posts.  He is driven to destroy this thread.  He is determined to usurp this technology.  Strangely, he seems to think that his tactics are likely to succeed.  Else why would he do this?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

There could be many reasons why the larger batteries might work and the smaller ones not.  But if you do the 2ah tests, wont this issue here come as a question if it doesnt work?     

I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.

And Guys, I see that the preferred battery is being discussed.

I will need to talk to some experts about this and possibly even our manufacturers.  My intention is to find those that can reliably generate a strong current flow in line with it's ratings.  When I've found such I'll post details of it here.  My hope is to get these donated again.  It's all in the interests of open source and I'm reasonably satisfied that those batteries will be well advertised.  So.  Hold your horses.  I'll see what I can come up with.

Unless one of you lot can do this for me?  Or in conjunction with me?  Either way.  I think we should look into all options.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

That is NOT the bullet scheduled list that I'm referring to.  I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER related to my list scheduled above.  Not even the amendment you seem to require of numbering those items.  I get the distinct impression that you're passing over the required changes that I propose.  And I'm inclined to think that this is deliberate.  Are my proposals simply to be ignored?  That's a bit harsh Poynty Point.

I think you'll agree that I need to cater to Harti's 'grounding' concerns.  I've done so.  There is, therefore, no need for the 555 test.  I would have thought?

Again,
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?