It is impossible to provide precision where this exact system is involved without very expensive data collection equipment.

In addition to overlapping Real Time Analysers it would be necessary to store terabytes of data during a total battery expenditure. In the only rundown test I'm aware of, the batteries reached approximately 50% of their voltage after 13 hours (IIRC), and the discharge rate declines as the voltage declines similar to a capacitive discharge curve, so 13 hours would not even represent the first time constant in a 5t discharge cycle (the first tc is about 66% of the total capacity with each subsequent tc being 66% of the remaining charge).

However, the gate to source voltage would prohibit the circuit from running below 2V as the Hexfet would cease to function at this point, and it is unlikely that the 555 would continue function below it's rated minimum operating voltage of 4.5V.

Therefore the final tc would be lost for a 24V battery bank, but even then we would be sure to have at a minimum about 52 hours with Glen's configuration before the system stops working. With 52 hours of continuous data, you can imagine the data storage capacity needed.

IIRC, we provided 3 samples about every 6 minutes at 40µs, 20µs and 2µs per division. There are 10 divisions of data each, giving 400µs, 200µs and 20µs for a total of 620µs for each sample. With 10 such samples, this offers 6200µs of data for a 1 hour test. There are 1,000,000µs in each second, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour. So out of a possible three billion six hundred million microseconds seconds, we only grabbed six thousand two hundred microseconds of data for a test that was only 1/52 of the time necessary for a full analysis. That is about than one part per 30 million or 0.03 parts per million sample size.

To make matters worse, the record clearly shows that Professor Iravani with IEEE corresponded that a reviewer in his team specifically targeted the 555 circuit as a culprit for currents flowing in the current sensing resistor thereby skewing the results. I argued with her for several hours

and   that at the very least this had to be addressed in a post test. I later showed in the paper, that up to 6W of energy are able to flow through the gate barrier in that fashion. Under extreme protest

she reluctantly agreed that this test could be performed, it involved adding a second current sensing resistor in the timer ground leg so that it's values could be subtracted from the power circuit current values. Unfortunately, we only have a grand total of a paltry 2µs of data for that test - hardly enough to hang a hat on as precise. However, that minuscule test did show the currents to be in our favor indicating that the 555 circuit was not adding to the indicated power, but instead was stealing from it by a very small margin.

If I did the analysis correctly - I couldn't get anyone in the forum to review my work and post their analysis.

Whatever the case, it was no where near the thermal differential observed whether we added it or subtracted it. So I ASSUMED that if we projected that 2µs over the entire series of tests that the timer circuit was not interjecting energy into the readings, but this is only a big guess - completely unproven.

But that's not all - then we have to address the serious problem of DC heating verses Aperiodic heating. To my surprise, these resistors act very different when you run DC through them as compared to running AC through them for the exact same voltage and current.

To compound this problem, the closer we get to microwave (>300MHz) frequencies in the aperiodic harmonics, the worse these comparisons become. This sent me reeling as all of our tests were based on a painstaking DC baseline that Glen expertly performed, and now I discover we are comparing apples to oranges.

The only way to get precision would be to do a series of collective tests on the resistor mapping it's temperature to frequency response using as close a pulse envelope as possible to that being used in the aperiodic operation. An almost impossible task even for a precision lab like you work in.

In addition to this we also have the problem with 'spot' measurements for the thermal readings. While great care was taken to keep the measurement device in the same orientation and distance, the recorded measurements were the result of several readings along the surface of the resistor in various places looking for the hottest spot and not all readings were taken on the same exact spot. Furthermore, the readings themselves are extremely subjective based on the assumption that the materials used would be radiating IR (see blackbody radiation) in agreement with what would be transferred conductively. It was assumed that since the resistor was continuously dissipating heat into the still air by convection that the IR reading would be a conservative value. However, it should be considered that IR is a form of electromagnetic radiation and this circuit has proven to be an EM transmitter at least in the RF regions. If it also proves to be an IR transmitter, the true energy output could be greatly skewed. These heaters are an example of that. Poor thermal transfer conductively, but huge thermal transfer via EM radiation.

That is why in the end I realized that the only accurate means to measure the battery power to thermal energy on such an aperiodic circuit was to use a hydrometer and calorimeter.

Loner - I'm actually addressing your post in Glen's thread here.  I see you giving his subject the kind of gravitas that it otherwise lacks. 

That there are emotions related to this application is only because - from it's inception - these tests of mine seem to warrant an attack that has been unprecedented in any of these forums - with the possible exception of Mylow's test that TK managed to debunk - rather skillfully, I understand.  But the facts are that it's either the claim - or my nature - or both - that seem to engender a kind of protest that I have difficulty dealing with.  My own take is that I'm probably way too pedantic for my own good.  But be that as it may.  I can only do my best.  And I do. 
This is required.  The data is impeccable.  The only hope is to discredit my character.  The object being to discredit the tests - by hell or high water. 
The answer here is partly in your 1st point.  But like all things it's not the whole of the picture.  There was a 'squabble' over the paper which I initiated as an open source effort.  Very unfortunate decision here.  It led to the inevitable squabbles as there were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery. The confrontation was rather unbridled - the most of it confined to off forum communications - and, being 'unfettered' in their emails, they indulged in a level of communication that was entirely unprofessional - excessive in it's delivery - and abusive in it's text.  Most of those statements made are actionable - and I look forward one day to finding a forum where I can make full disclosure of that - just to alert our public as to the nature of the players involved.  The comfort is that not all forum members are like that.  The sad news is that there are even any.  I suppose the truth is that I should just forget it.  But it was so PROFOUNDLY shocking.  I had NO idea that I was dealing with such horrors.
No.  The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence.  But not much of that either.  They have very little interest in their own thread and even less participation.  Thankfully, their denials of efficiency are largely discounted.  In effect, had I not PROTESTED as strongly as I did - then I have NO DOUBT that this technology would have been buried.  That was and is their intention.
 I can only assure you that there's nothing PETTY in these constant requirements to ward off their attacks.  And I'm not qualified to say how much is motivated by greed or pure spite.  Possibly a little of both.  I have every intention of capitalising on this technology when it's finally determined how to 'up the wattage'.  And if it is not 'upped' then nor have I impoverished anyone in trying.  By the same token I would be delighted to see others advance the technolgy where the benefits will be entirely to their own accounts.  There's NO intellectual property rights here at all.
If there is proof of error then I assure you that there are MANY experts who have not been able to find it.  Just look again at the list of accreditors. 
Loner?  I have never objected to thoughtful critical observations.  Much required.  I think the only reason that I've been given moderation of the thread is to ensure that it's not subjected to the kind of troll attack that was evident - historically.  I have only deleted a single post from Ramset as he had an 'adults only' link - one from shrugged Atlas - which was done in error - and 1 from Spinn because it was just way too offensive.  For the rest I've either tolerated comments or reposted them on another thread.  With all that rubbish it would otherwise have buried my thead here. Also.  I try, to the best of my ability to MARK any modifications that I make to my own posts.  I NEVER modify others' posts.
I actually think that Glen is 'bursting' for want of telling his story.  And frankly - I think he should.  It may 'clear his head' so to speak.  There's always two sides to a story and - albeit that he struggles with language - he clearly feels that he has his justifications.  I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing. The subject is way too important for his personal feelings to get in the way.
There is no way that ANYONE can remove emotions from science - not with the best will in the world.  We are ALL inclined to support our own logic or even our own 'beliefs'.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'm entirely satisfied that even our Greats were inclined to passion.  So.  In my book all is just dandy.  I'm intensely relieved that Glen is on another thead as I would prefer my own to stay more considered and reasonable. And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking.

So.  Here's what I'm trying to tell you.  Feel free to express whatever doubts you have.  I welcome this as I can then address the issue.  Else I am not even aware of such doubts and I'd be sorry to lose out on the opportunity.  We're making some hefty inroads into some new technologies and clearly, there are such as you and Paul who were not even aware of this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Sorry I missed this.  If it is arrogance - then again, I really don't think I'm culpable.  I have NOTHING to be arrogant about.  Nor has Glen.  He's good at experimental work.  But that's it.
Have NO idea what SSG is - so can't comment.

edited the spelling of the word deleted.  LOL

to be honest glen, i also really could care less on theories, rosemary's, harvey's or aaron's notwithstanding. please do not think i am on rosemary's 'side'. my ONLY concern at the present time is refuting people positing logical fallacy as arguments. i quit with posting much of anything else after i got jumped on by ist, groundloop and some others for showing how to light a fluoro with an AA battery early on in the joulethief thread. please note that i haven't accused you of the things she has accused you of, i merely refuted skcusitrah/hartisucks and omni's erroneous claims that changing timestamps was 'practically impossible'. i watch, i observe. i know you are a talented experimenter. i make note of when and why you chose to post things other than your experiments. i do that with most of the contributors here.

i have no doubt rosemary has obfuscated in the past and still hasn't shown some cards... everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, plays that game.

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 19, 2010, 07:38:27 PM

punishment? punishment for what offence? can you talk about that?
i believe lindemann and murakami are charlatans. that is why i asked them to remove my account, i will not post at a site where friendship and monetary interest (selling ebooks and dvds) override integrity.

sorry to hear they did the same to you. i would imagine it is a regular occurrence... so much for 'peace, love and light'. i invite you to post those records in the 'censorship @ energeticforums' thread here. rose is moderator, so i can understand why you may not. i can, however, ask stefan to move it to a section of the forum where she is not a moderator.

to be honest glen, i also really could care less on theories, rosemary's, harvey's or aaron's notwithstanding. please do not think i am on rosemary's 'side'. my ONLY concern at the present time is refuting people positing logical fallacy as arguments. i quit with posting much of anything else after i got jumped on by ist, groundloop and some others for showing how to light a fluoro with an AA battery early on in the joulethief thread. please note that i haven't accused you of the things she has accused you of, i merely refuted skcusitrah/hartisucks and omni's erroneous claims that changing timestamps was 'practically impossible'. i watch, i observe. i know you are a talented experimenter. i make note of when and why you chose to post things other than your experiments. i do that with most of the contributors here.

i have no doubt rosemary has obfuscated in the past and still hasn't shown some cards... everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, plays that game.

Hi Willy,

I didn't realize you were censored at Energetic .... don't feel alone, the so called associates aka Kevin, Peter and Aaron protected Rosemary because Peter Lindmann, invited and brought her to Energetic Forum. Aaron after the Tektronix incident stopped posting in the thread and left the punishment up to Kevin and Peter.

The day the administration deleted over two hundred (200) posts in the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Part 2 thread .... I had forty two (42) posts "DELETED" and was told by the administration not to post there again, to post in the Mosfet Heater thread "ONLY" on my modified Quantum circuit, not to mention Rosemary's name .... this is a fact, and have e-mails to prove it from the administration, the same e-mail was also sent to Rosemary not to discuss "MY" circuit or talk about me.

As for "any" theory like Rosemary's or even Harvey's you can do a "search" at Energetic ..... never discussed the context on any of them at all ever, other than "why" Rosemary's theory got pinned onto the IEEE submittals which was the ultimate downfall for the paper, now only suited for a physics journal because of the theory addition. So sorry if I didn't help you out I do experimenting only really I could care less on theories .....

Glen

I'll pass here Glen.  Rather you go to the trouble to DISPROVE this.  My time is too subscribed at the moment.  And frankly I'd be rather glad to see you prove this as SLANDER.  It's no pleasure dealing the people who hide essential public data from easy public access.

guys - I won't interfer with the posting here.  Glen is deleting my posts.  and frankly - the subject is too too boring.  Have fun.


Rosmary

SILLY BOY !!

All the data was moved from the COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie and COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2 thread to the Mosfet Heating Circuits thread on 02-06-2010 @ 10:53 PM ....... it "NEVER" left Energetic Forum or Panacea BOCAF.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html

then why is ashtweth saying you deleted data SILLY GIRL?