.99,

I think I see it now.  Will wait for your answer...

PW

I had the same problem at first until I understood what he was saying. The instantaneous values of course are determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive. But because of the waveshape's asymmetry around the "neutral line" as the battery oscillations decrease the _average_ across several waveforms can change sign.

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

Look at that. Now she isn't even CONSIDERING testing the actual claim she's been making all this time. She's not even going to be testing THIS CIRCUIT but that other one claimed in the Quantum article, apparently. No simple battery drawdown tests of the so-called "Q-array" will be performed, JUST AS I HAVE PREDICTED ALL ALONG.

And she thinks that Stefan is "not dependable."

And you should see all the stuff that my house is stuffed with. I'll wager again that I have less room to move around in than poor old Rosie Poser.

Here's one more tear.
 

And good riddance to you, Poser. Good luck in finding another forum that will put up with your lies and ignorance.
 

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.

Rosemary, if you say you will be demonstrating OU then that is claiming OU. How could you possibly say you will be demonstrating OU but not claiming to show OU. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Kinda like saying I will flap my wings and fly but I wont be claiming I flew.

You are either saying you will be showing OU, or you are not saying you will be showing OU. Which is it ? Please be clear.

Will you be showing OU ? Yes or No ?

Cheers

@Farmhand.... yep. And she is actually right about one thing... there is another power source, and we've identified where it is and how it works, and it has nothing to do with her silly unscientific "thesis" at all. It is the FUNCTION GENERATOR.

That hardly matters though. You can see that she's backing down from her claims and isn't even planning to do the definitive test of the current apparatus at all... she's going to be testing that other COP>17 device. And THAT device rests its claim on.... not only power measurements... but CALORIMETRY as well. In other words, she claims excess heat in the load over and above what the batteries supply.

And guess what... she might be right. The FG could be heating the load, since the COP>17 circuit is basically the same as this one except with (or is it without, Rosie?) a diode or two, and only has a single magic mosfet.

Note also that she says this:

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'.

But it's not really the "evidence" that we here are denying, is it. After all, we've produced EXACTLY THE SAME EVIDENCE that she has. In further fact, it is SHE who is denying OUR evidence, isn't it. And has there ever been a less open "open source" claimant than our dear Rosie Poser?
So this counts as yet another false claim, distortion, misrepresentation of our work. It is the CONCLUSION based on the evidence that we deny, and the evidence for THAT is right under her nose in those dead batteries in her closet.

ETA: In fact, there should be no need at all for her to charge those batteries BEFORE testing. Since they never run down, they must have been fully charged when she put them away. So I think, as a requirement for her tests to be considered valid, that she NOT be allowed to charge those batteries conventionally at all. Ever.

Rosemary:

For what it is worth, here is your discussion about there being no power dissipated in a resistor if the "current and voltage are out of phase:"

I now see your Achilles Heel TK.  You have NO CLUE how to do power analysis.  And you have NO CLUE about phase shifts.  I assure you that if the current flow through the resistor was that 'out of phase' then there would be absolutely NO evidence of any heat WHATSOEVER.

It's from posting #2139 in your thread.

Here is what you said in posting #2157 on the same topic:

No MileHigh.  You'll need to do your own research here.  Just as a clue - the power output depends on the level of the phase relationship between current and voltage.  The more out of phase - the less power dissipated.  TK's waveforms are entirely out of phase. 

My comment in post #2163:

Rosemary, the fact that you are not thinking, and are refusing to take me up on my challenge to you to start thinking, is really most unfortunate.  If you have current flow and there is a resistance associated with your load, then you have power dissipation.  The current and voltage will always be in phase for the resistive component of the load.  You are confusing the concept of capacitive or inductive reactance with resistance.

P = i-squared x R.   You know this formula.

You never admitted that you were wrong.  Will you admit it now?

There is a reason for raising this issue about admitting that you are wrong, and it's a follow up on the recent discussion in this thread.

If you start doing your testing in your thread and you make gross errors, you simply cannot gloss over them and not acknowledge them.   Nor can you be dismissive of them.  This will simply not work and it is not good science.

I am anticipating that you will make gross errors and they will have to be corrected.  Otherwise you will be creating another mess, another ambiguous total shambles that will be inconclusive.

So Rosemary, if you are going to be doing your own testing your best choice of action would be to start acknowledging and correcting your errors right now, before you get into the testing.

MileHigh

She has never even admitted that THIS is wrong, either.

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow?

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

So one mile is the same as one mile per hour, the terms are interchangeable. And thirty students per class is the same as thirty classes per student, the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER.
Do the math.

But of course.... the definitions of units of Power and Energy and their relationship have got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of testing RA's overunity power claim.

Take a look at the blue, Gate drive trace in that last shot. Doesn't that look weird, to be coming from a FG set to make a square pulse?
What's going on here?
Also note that this is one shot where the battery voltage was indeed 72 volts nominal.

TK,

The CH3 trace is one of the questions I have about FIG4.  The basic shape of the indicated signal makes sense.  The negative going portion, that ends in a negative peak, is likely the Ciss being charged via Rgen and at the negative peak, Q2 is turning on.  This time point (the neg peak) coincides with the gitch seen in the CH1 trace on its rising edge just past the gnd ref line.  As Q2 turns on, current pulled thru Rgen causes the source of Q2 to be pulled positive, and this would be the positive going portion of the CH 3 trace as it rises from the negative peak.  From that point, there are at least three events that happen related Q2 turn off, Ciss/Coss discharge, inductive collapse, and possible clamping or switching by body diodes that I have not yet fully "deciphered".

Looking at FIG 5 in the first paper, the AC signal on the CH3 trace, during the oscillation phase, is offset more negative than is indicated during a similar time in FIG4 (or its mate FIG3).  This could be an indication that when the FIG5 trace was made, the FG common was connected at the non-battery side of the CSR. and that possibly the FIG4 trace was with the FG common to the battery side of the CSR (as video evidence supports).

If, as the text states for FIG3 and FIG4, the FG was at full negative offset, there may have been sufficient DC current flowing through the CSR to raise the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR slightly positive and account for the differences in offset observed between FIG4 and FIG5 regarding the CH3 traces during oscillation.

Keep in mind that FIG3 (and hence FIG4) indicates an issue regarding Q1 as well, so some of the differences may thereto be related.  But more likely it is with regard to the FG common connection point.

What does does the signal look like at the source of Q2 in your circuit during oscillation?

If your Q2 source signal is much more negative than as indicated by FIG5, possibly you are having to bias on harder to get a similar oscillation.  More length on the battery wire (or somewhere) might add sufficient inductance to allow you to get large oscillations at lower Ibias.

In order to replicate all the nuances of the AC indicated on the CH3 trace, I have also always suggested a 50R bias source.

PW