Quote from RA
 "NOW.  I think we're nearing the end of our little romance - my sweet.  I've been able to access Professor Jandrell - who acknowledges that he insisted on 'taking out' that rather significant data related to battery draw down tests.  I'm yet to be given an explanation for this."

Rosie, Rosie,
The world is a small place. These little pork pies come back to haunt one. Professor Jandrell is a friend of mine. He says that he has not spoken to you for years.

By the way Professor Jandrell is one of the academics that you are trying to attract to your project. He is well respected in both the academic and engineering worlds. At the time of the Quantum publication he was head of the electrical department at Wits University. You are unlikely to get the right sort of attention by attacking such people.

Thank you for that bit of information. I wonder what Jandrell thinks of her using his name in this manner.

But with regard to the Quantum article and the claims made in that paper: The published schematic does not do what she claims it does. Therefore that paper too is a complete lie. The published schematic makes a LONG ON TIME duty cycle and CANNOT BE ADJUSTED to make a duty cycle under 50 percent, much less the 3.6 percent ON range that Ainslie claims.

Either the published schematic is WRONG in that it does not portray what she actually used... OR the schematic DOES portray what she actually used. If it is WRONG.... that is, if she used some other circuit.... then don't you think the correct circuit should have been published by now, and the article corrected? If the schematic is RIGHT (that is, if it is the one she actually used), then she used its inverted duty cycle and ALL the data in the article is bogus, as usual.

Ainslie has allowed this Quantum article to remain, without correction, and as you can see she still refers to it with her false claims.

The published schematic in the Quantum article DOES NOT make the duty cycle that Ainslie claims. Yet the paper has not been corrected or withdrawn and she still refers to it. This is COMPLETELY DISHONEST on the part of Ainslie and Donvan Martin.

Once again, I invite any and everyone to construct the timer portion of the Quantum circuit to see for themselves just what it does and does not do. It contains perhaps five dollars worth of parts and can be constructed in thirty minutes and tested in five. I've posted both Ainslie's original schematic, and my re-drawing of the circuit up above. My re-draw follows standard circuit layout and is the exact same circuit, but might be easier to follow than her tangled mess that doesn't even have the 555 pin numbers on it.

Tseak, what does Jandrell think of Ainslie's publication of his name, in association with this Quantum article which contains Ainslie's false claims about that circuit?

Hi Bill

As I understand it, it will be handled like the previous one, streamed to public view but open by invitation only to participate in the discussion.
I believe Steve Weir will be the "moderator". Their previous discussion and agreement they reached is at the top of this thread, and that summary was written by Weir, and posted by Ainslie. I don't know if she actually read it though since she already seems to be changing, unilaterally, the plan.

Obviously they had the tripod; the story the last time is that "they couldn't get the video camera to work" so they had to use the cellphone, and of course there's no easy way to put a cellphone on a tripod. Hey, maybe there's a market for cellphone tripod adapters! In any case they say that they will use a better camera and point it at interesting stuff this time.

Will they make the Aug 4 date? Well, they are supposed to have a rehearsal/conference call with S.Weir on Saturday. That is the show I'd like to see, myself. They may find, after that, that there is nothing to demonstrate except more failures like the Figure 3 attempts, and not have any demo on Sunday at all. Or they may claim that even their null results support her "thesis", just like she has been doing wrt the June 29 demo. A distant possibility would be a public retraction and apology, the "eating of the hat" ceremony. That is what should take place on Sunday!

No, whatever happens this weekend you can bet on one thing: Ainslie will not stop her nonsense. But maybe she will at least pause for a while.

Cheers--
--TK

Bill,

I made a formal request a few days ago to Rose to be included in the dry run on Saturday, but she has turned me down, citing "discomfort" in having me around should the results obtained on Saturday turn out to be unfavorable for her.

So I am in the same boat as everyone else, and we must rely on S.Wier to ensure the setup and testing go as "planned".

I had requested that a test plan be written up and distributed (which would delineate which tests are being performed and include pass/fail criteria for each), but I'm not certain that is going to be forthcoming either. I do know that Steve is writing up a "test script" which will be used throughout the testing however. I would also like it formally known that Rose has flatly declined to perform a Pbat "sanity check" using either the scope-measured MEAN Vbat and Vcsr voltages, or DMM measurements of the same. And this despite strong advisement from both Steve and myself.

I'll post here any updates I may receive on Saturday.

TK and .99 and gang:

Demo delayed and waiting for parts.  And some "People in Conflict" drama like usual.

Let me comment on the sanity check with the hope that an alternative explanation sinks in:  With the correct setup, the battery voltage "oscillations" will be reduced to a kind of smallish peach fuzz superimposed on the battery voltage.  The "peach fuzz" will primarily be due to the inherent inductance of the batteries in series interacting with the switching.  For example, when the MOSFET switch switches off, a tiny tiny positive peach fuzz spike will be seen on the battery voltage.  When the MOSFET switch switches on, a tiny tiny negative peach fuzz spike will be seen on the battery voltage.

Any dual-slope integration digital multimeter will easily average this peach fuzz out and give a very accurate average voltage measurement.  The "secret" is that the averaging is being done by a capacitor performing integration with "infinite" (very very high bandwidth) resolution.

I fear when Rosemary uses the term "battery voltage oscillations" that she believes that seeing any kind of battery voltage oscillation means that there is a recharging cycle going on.  That is of course not the case, the only way to conclude the battery is recharging is to look at what's going on with the current sense resistor.

The same dual-slope integration will be done on the current sense resistor and hence you will get a very accurate measurement of the average battery current.  Here is where Rosie is going to be startled, because any negative voltage on the current sensing resistor indicating recharging is going to be mighty mighty tiny.  It's going to look like peach fuzz on top of peach fuzz, or peach fuzz-squared.

The bottom line is that the the multimeter is able to give you a very accurate average battery voltage measurement.  The voltage is always positive, even if you see an oscillation superimposed on it.  The multimeter is able to give you a very accurate average current measurement.  Multiply the two together to get your average battery output power.

There may be some apparent recharging going on, but it will minuscule and there is a good chance that what appears to be recharging will mostly be due to wire inductance effects. (i.e.; a fake-out, there isn't actual recharging when you are seeing wire inductance effects)

It's reasonable to view batteries as sluggish.  It's hard to say how much the battery voltage will drop in reality when the MOSFET switches on when the oscillations are happening.  There may be a kind of "battery pseudo capacitive effect" and the switching cycle is already over before the sluggish battery's output impedance kicks in and the voltage actually does drop.  It's very possible that if you could remove all of the inductive effects that the battery voltage would do a small droop and be near-DC while the MOSFET is in the oscillation phase.  Another way to say it is that my gut feel is telling me there is a kind of low-pass filter associated with the battery output voltage.

So if you make the thought experiment of stripping the circuit down to it's bare essentials, this is what you have during the infamous oscillation phase:  The battery voltage has a slight droop but is still otherwise near-DC.  The current is just unidirectional pulses.  Any returning "recharge" pulses are peach fuzz-squared, they are the tiniest wisps of current, something that would only impress a 10 picofarad capacitor.  Also, because of the battery's sluggishness, it doesn't even "see" these minuscule recharge pulses as actually recharging the battery.  They are so narrow and contain so little energy that they just dump their energy into the battery resistively.  So the harsh truth is that the battery doesn't recharge at all.  Even if it could recharge, the return power into the battery is so tiny that it would take five years worth of continuous peach fuzz-squared pulsing to recharge it.

And that's the way it is!  lol

Did you know that you can make money at home working on your computer?  Philip Hardcastle has a job offer for Rosemary!  lol  Who needs the NSA?   

I realize this is not likely to do any good at all, since LMM has no math past simple arithmetic... but here goes, anyhow.

A short video:
http://www.brightstorm.com/math/calculus/the-definite-integral/average-value-of-a-function/

And below is a diagram and explanation from a calculus textbook on Safari:

TK,

Rose is arguing the validity of using AVG(Vcsr) x AVG(Vbat) to sanity-check the AVG(v*i d/dt) measurement from the scope.

I've proven it is valid, and Steve has said that it is valid. Rose however refuses to listen (as usual) and is stuck on her belief that making this simple calculation somehow causes the "benefits" to be lost.

She has no proof, only a belief that her assertion is true. But everyone is entitled to their beliefs I suppose.

I have again challenged her to prove her belief in exchange for the OUR Award prize.

Just for fun some show and tell.  In the attached graphic you can clearly see that during the oscillations the battery discharging current spikes form a bright solid band and the battery charging current spikes form a dimmer solid band.

I ask the question, "How wispy is this peach fuzz?"

The reason I ask the question is because the real question is, "Can I use the relative brightness of the two bands on the DSO display to make an estimate about the relative average current in each direction?"

The answer is no because you are looking at processed data, data that has been washed through a display algorithm to try to make it "make sense" on the display.  The display resolution is much lower than the equivalent sampling rate resolution so a software algorithm has to deal with this issue.  There is a very good chance that the wispy peach fuzz is in fact much fainter than it appears to be, indicating much less recharging is going on.  There still might be some wire inductance effects at play also, and we know they can appear to indicate battery recharging when it's not actually taking place.

No matter how you look at it, including from the attached DSO capture, the net battery current is showing very clearly that the batteries are discharging.  And the battery voltage is near constant DC.  The measurements, if properly done by Donny and Rosie, will also show this.  Both the DSO based measurements and the multimeter-based measurements will show this.  And we are expecting that Donny and Rosemary will do proper thermal profiling of the load resistor.  The battery output power measured with both methods and the load power measured with the thermal profiling will all be approximately the same

The more I look at those upper and lower peach fuzz bands, the less comfortable I get that they are telling the true story.

The waveform is too symmetrical about the ground.  If you assume that the MOSFET switch on and switch off times are about the same, then the inductive effects would superimpose a symmetrical peach fuzz waveform above and below the ground just like we see in the scope trace.  What I don't know is if this makes sense considering that Poynt has his scope leads clipped as close as possible to the current sensing resistor.  However, the excitation voltage is much higher then one normally works with and that might explain it.

So it looks like the oscillation is composed of two components:  1) the symmetrical bidirectional wispy waveform from the wire inductive effects, and 2) a train of unidirectional current pulses corresponding to the battery discharging.  (Note the distinctive extra bright solid band in the battery discharging half of the waveform.)

A laying on of wet fingers on the current sensing resistor might show that.  (Yuck!)  Alternatively, a very very tiny capacitor soldered across the CSR might do the trick.  It has to be a "Goldilocks" capacitor that is large enough to soak up the wispy-ness waveform, yet small enough to not affect the train of current pulses corresponding to the battery discharging.  If the wispy pulses are truly tiny relative to the discharging current pulses that may be possible.

You can imagine when you put something like a 10 pF capacitor across the CSR, that the wispy positive and negative pulses nearly disappear and all you see is the train of regular current pulses corresponding to the battery discharging when the MOSFET switches on.