Follow by Email

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

71 - the actual anomaly that we're hoping will be addressed

Dear Reader,

BP's accreditations of these tests, back in 2001 or thereby - were based on the draw down rate of batteries against a control. In effect they required us to run two sets of tests simultaneously - then recharge the batteries - swap the control to the test - and run the same experiment again. This to ensure that battery vargaries weren't the cause. The first was to evaluate the amount of energy required to heat the resistor to an equivalent value. The second was to run the control at the equivalent current that we were measuring. The second gave a draw down commensurate with the experiment. The first depeleted long before there was any kind of significant discharge from our supply battery. These tests took forever to complete. The good news here is that this actually generated a report. But I cannot, for the life of me, find it.

Notwithstanding I used this protocol in our COP>17 experiment. We always ran the control with the experiment. But - for reasons which I have never fully understood, we were not allowed to reference those controls. Therefore did our schedule of results simply hold what was seemingly an arbitrary test duration period. That duration related to the time it took to run the control to below 10 volts per battery used. At which stage the batteries on the test experiment had barely lost a fraction of a volt.

However, having said that - I must acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never run any tests with zero discharge from the battery. I have certainly seen battery voltage climb but then it drops. And with these new results - technically we should only ever be showing a recharge or, alternatively, a stable voltage. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that this is the case. We have never used any kind of battery charger on the bank of batteries that we're using. And they've been operational daily for the last 3 months or so. Today was the first time that I actually looked at the effect on the battery voltage and saw that it continually swings between 0.5 volts up and down. No evident entirely 'upward' swing. But by the same token nor was there a downward swing. On some resonances there's a wild swing and an immediate drop to plus/minus 10 volts each from the 12 volts that should be available. But under these circumstances there's a steady climb back to the start voltage - so I assume it's some kind of charge balance that kicks in when the resonating condition is established. Under 12 volts is certainly not representative of the battery's actual charge.

We will be using an hydrometer to test the actual battery condition - just to see if there's any evidence of recharge through our system. But. And here's the caveat. I absolutely do not depend on the battery condition to assert our claim. We would first need to evaluate whether the recharge can be reasonably accomplished at all - at the high frequencies that we use. I just don't know. I've never studied the process closely enough to know what's required.

The claim is only this. We have both a negative mean and cycle mean average over our shunt that indicates that there is more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered. This is unequivocal. And it's a result that can be found at multiple frequencies and with a variety of settings from the functions generator. And this while the temperature over the resistor reaches a level indicative of 5 watts or greater being dissipated - depending on the frequency and setting at the switch. This result is absolutely NOT in line with classical prediction. If this can be acknowledged as an anomaly - then the questions - those many many questions that we've all be asking for so long - may well get the attention they both need and deserve. In other words - if we had a pure DC supply source - then what's evident is that we could return enough energy to that supply that would be measurable. In effect, if we used our grid supply and rectified the current to DC - then we could return enough energy that we could bill our utility suppliers - subject to them allowing this through their watt meters. It will - at its least, require a revision to the protocols applied to standard measurements. There is nothing exceptional on our circuit. Nothing out of the ordinary. It is only these results that need a full investigation and full analysis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

70 - infinite co-efficient of performance

Dear Reader,

Lest anyone - especially MileHigh - missed this. Please note that the point at which these results move away from all classical prediction is when the mean average, the integral and the cycle mean averages of the shunt voltage shows a negative voltage. This is the moment when there is also clear evidence that the supply source is - at its least - conserving its charge. Proof is in the math trace that computes the product of the battery and shunt voltages.

Just to remind you. Here it is again. And given that this is 50 seconds worth of data - then it also appears that this is not an accidental result of some momentary aberration in the data capture. Again. Mainstream require that power comes only from the supply - in this case - from our batteries. How then can more energy be returned to that supply than was first delivered?

And Poynty - to answer your questions - our probe is unquestionably across the shunt. (added) B is connected to ground - and we have a short wire to enable the probe connection at the FET.


Kindest regards,
Rosemary