TK:

With some of your recent experiments with the oscillations running (let's assume 'negative' power) you had an in-line digital ammeter and an in-line analog ammeter showing that there was a net DC current flowing out of the batteries.  Correct?

(snip)

Yes, that's right. The ultimate cheapo CenTech DMM, purchased on sale from Harbor Freight for 3 dollars each, battery included. I have 4 or 5 of them. The voltmeter was right on the battery terminals with the tiny clipleads, and the ammeter was in series with the negative supply lead with about 36 inches of wire total. The DC resistance of the ammeter is 1.8 ohms.

http://www.harborfreight.com/7-function-multimeter-98025.html

And the ammeter was calibrated against Ohm's Law with a known resistance and regulated DC voltages, as I showed in a video. But of course.... there is the RF component, and it does make these meters go crazy at times. Even in the latest videos where I get my fingers close to the voltage reading you can see it fluctuate... this is because of the RF.  I have a Fluke 83 that is less susceptible .... but I have lots of other stuff too. Who needs it? Why waste heavy artillery on soft targets?

And yes, I never saw a negative current reading. But I wasn't looking at it 100 percent of the time.... therefore aliens.

PW,

Regarding "where you are going", I've done a detailed analysis on using "averaging" to obtain an easy accurate measurement of input battery power. You might be surprised by a couple things. From page 42 and 43 of the attached document:

.99,

Interesting, I'll find the time to read the full document and give it further thought.

Apparently, you too have also spent a great deal of time on all of this!

I'd still like to see some heavily decoupled measurements for comparison (which as proposed is similar to your optional non-invasive RC filtering at the meter, only done via the supply decoupling instead).

PW

@PW: Ah... a fellow amateur stargazer!
I have three telescopes. The first is a Meade ETX-125, a great little scope that was my first real telescope and my introduction to AP. It's at the other location and I haven't used it in a year, unfortunately.
Next there are the primary visual and AP instruments. The rich-field refractor is a William Optics Megrez 90 apochromat with a TeleVue field flattener/reducer which gives me about f/4.8 or so. Then there is the Celestron 9.25 inch EdgeHD aplanatic SCT, f/10, the true "yard cannon". Both these are used on the fine Celestron CGEM mount, which I can control from inside the house over the wireless LAN with a laptop out in the TK ObservaYurt. The mount is guided by the Orion "AAG" guide scope using Stark Labs PHD guide software. I put a simple pier in the yurt a couple months ago, but all those photos are taken from the CGEM tripod. For photography I use a Canon EOS 400D, and an Orion Parsec 8300M monochrome imager, with filters to construct the RGB images like that of NGC891. The planetary stuff is done with a Celestron NexImage webcam thingy and lots of advanced processing. Images are processed with Nebulosity (paid for in full),  DeepSkyStacker, RegiStax, PixInsightLE and the gimp, all free or shareware. PixInsightLE has 96-bit data paths and handles all astronomical image formats in full data resolution until the final jpegging for transport.

Now you know why I LOL whenever Rosie Poser comments about my poorly lit videos and shaky camera. The Rosette Nebula shot is well over four hours of exposure, for example. And most of those shots are taken from my backyard in the middle of San Antonio.

.99,

Does the AC observed on the Vbatt+ rail shift phase as you approach the battery?

PW

No, there is no apparent difference in phase shift.

Reference the attached sim scope shot, the power computation becomes less negative as the battery p-p voltage drops. The reason? Looking at the unclipped peak, we are multiplying the VCSR peak (neg) and the VBAT peak (pos), so the higher the VBAT peak, the higher the negative product of the two. When averaged, the result is a larger negative average power.

It is not until the VBAT trace becomes almost flat that the true power computation is realized.

No, there is no apparent difference in phase shift.

Reference the attached sim scope shot, the power computation becomes less negative as the battery p-p voltage drops. The reason? Looking at the unclipped peak, we are multiplying the VCSR peak (neg) and the VBAT peak (pos), so the higher the VBAT peak, the higher the negative product of the two. When averaged, the result is a larger negative average power.

It is not until the VBAT trace becomes almost flat that the true power computation is realized.

.99,

What am I missing here?

As long as VCSR averages negative, won't any positive value for VBATT averaged result in a negative product?

PW

.99,

What am I missing here?

As long as VCSR averages negative, won't any positive value for VBATT averaged result in a negative product?

PW

Who said VCSR average is negative? 

Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again.  I'll not answer him.  Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.

I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum.  This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread  'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed.  Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable. 

I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test.  This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators.  And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test.  This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.

While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this.  The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure.  While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test.  Therefore both tests are required.

In terms of a 'time line'.  Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early  May.  The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house.  I need to set these tests up in our study.  At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons.  This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country.  All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week.  Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing.  But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things.  I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge.  And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com.  I've got lots of homework to do before I get started.  And I won't be 'rushed'.  I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past.  Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence.  And I've been well 'bitten'.  I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented.  That way the results will be unequivocal.  It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'. 

But I'll get there.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise.  A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters.  I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread.  And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today.  Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary 

Guys - I was going to engage in a long argument related to TK's post numbers 644 and 643 - and have just gone over those points again.  I'll not answer him.  Those posts parade a level of disrespect and calumny that is not deserving of any attention at all.

I am looking to spread the exposure of our demonstrations to more than just Harti's forum.  This because I cannot run the risk of having the thread  'flamed' - the data 'deleted' - nor the thread 'locked' before those tests are completed.  Harti's history in this respect has not been dependable. 

I absolutely guarantee that we'll exceed battery watt hour rating by a considerable margin on the re-run of our COP>17 test.  This to refute allegations of 'failure' by sundry replicators.  And I will also run the similar test against our NERD Q-array test.  This to test it's performance and thereby to test the allegations of 'failure' by TK.

While we will be demonstrating over unity - we do not claim this.  The thesis that predicted these results includes the possibility of a second energy supply source located in the 'bonding' material which is also proposed to be extraneous to the atomic structure.  While we KNOW that we can exceed the thermodynamic constraints on our COP>17 test - we can PROVE the thesis in our NERD Q-array test.  Therefore both tests are required.

In terms of a 'time line'.  Our best hope is to get the first tests up an running by early  May.  The only locale for this that will provide the required supervision of those tests - is at my house.  I need to set these tests up in our study.  At the moment our study - and indeed the entire house is crammed with 3 sets of furniture - for various reasons.  This has to be sorted, packed and shipped up country.  All of which will be completed by Wednesday of next week.  Then - for the first time I'll be able to set up our apparatus - ready for testing.  But even before I get there I have to iron out certain things.  I can't again afford to have my thread 'flamed to death' with the kind of calumny that TK et al - indulge.  And, ideally, we need to reach a wider audience than simply OU.com.  I've got lots of homework to do before I get started.  And I won't be 'rushed'.  I've depended on the good will of our open source community - in the past.  Its ranks, unfortunately, are also peppered with those who are rather anxious to deny our evidence.  And I've been well 'bitten'.  I don't intend making any further contributions unless that knowledge is well supported by good scientific argument and then carefully presented.  That way the results will be unequivocal.  It matters way more than catering to any impatient demands that we perform 'on demand'. 

But I'll get there.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  And for those of you who are stressed because of the delays - then I apologise.  A large part of the hold up is that we've recently and sadly had two death's in our little family and I've been dealing with estate matters.  I've undertaken to inform Harti when I'm ready and he, in turn, has undertaken to give me a moderated thread.  And I expect my first posts in that thread will not be for another 3 weeks from today.  Maybe 2 - if things pan out smoothly.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

My condolences to you for your losses Rosemary.

PW