Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1998290 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4575 on: August 13, 2012, 09:02:23 AM »
You're lucky the shrapnel didn't get you.

Hope you washed off the PCB's...

Actually around that apparatus I always wore earmuffs and a full face shield. And on that event I am really glad it was my policy. Ruined a shirt...

One day I thought I'd try a very thin strip of aluminum foil instead of the #34 or #40 enamelled Cu wire I usually used. Ths target wire is clamped by the feed electrodes to a piece of fine art paper on a masonite platen, another sheet of paper placed over it, the top masonite platen is put on that and the whole thing is weighted with a heavy weight.

The foil exploded with such force it tore the platen apart and ripped the tempered masonite like it was a sheet of paper. I was really amazed by the difference in the strength of the explosion with the same input energy.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4576 on: August 13, 2012, 09:11:02 AM »
PW:

I think a few of us suspect that "Equipe NERD" is just Rosemary and a few cats.  And that's not slang for cool dudes or dudettes.  lol

Maybe this fellow could help.


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4577 on: August 13, 2012, 09:12:31 AM »
I don't know about this other one, though. Music and preaching... .not really compatible with electronics theory, but you never can tell.



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4578 on: August 13, 2012, 09:19:39 AM »
Now... watch ME get flamed, because these people chose to put their names out on the internet as authors of papers and on social media sites... whose expressed purpose is to make people contactable and establish an internet presence.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4579 on: August 13, 2012, 03:34:51 PM »
Quote of the morning:

Quote
Correctly speaking therefore we need to apply a DC cap with a rating of not less than 150 volts which can also operate at a frequency of not less than 1.4mHz.  Is there even such an animal?  I've been asking around and getting nowhere fast.

Getting nowhere fast is right.... and it's certainly not "our" fault, Ainslie.

Responses of the morning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-5UPbSrv8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo

These were posted on July 4.

Now.... let us once again speak of willfull ignorance, overweening arrogance, and utter incompetence on the part of Rosemary Ainslie. It seems that her posts consist of three things only: garbled ignorant attempts at discussing electronics like this, lies and misrepresentations about her tinkering and the work of others, and insults and threats to anyone who challenges her.


Guys... Batteries in parallel... you measure half the voltage. Who knew. Surely? LOL....

(mHz, MHz.... what's a factor of a billion, among friends? Chopped liver.)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 04:44:32 PM by TinselKoala »

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4580 on: August 13, 2012, 06:34:41 PM »
Her limited understanding of basic electricity, let alone electronics, and the amount of energy contained in a bank of lead acid batteries, combined with her poor eyesight, is a recipe for disaster.

Those images of melted battery terminal clamps should have been a wake-up call as to what all those batteries are capable of doing.  Personal injury and/or burning down a house are very real possibilities.     

I highly recommend that she find someone qualified in the field of electronics to assist in performing her tests.


ADDED:

She should also talk to her insurance company as well.  They would likely frown on her just having lead acid batteries on the property, let alone if they saw the images of the melted terminal clamps.  They would likely require a rider or policy upgrade if they are willing to underwrite at all.   




picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4581 on: August 13, 2012, 07:21:22 PM »
Is it not possible to use smaller sealed lead acid batteries batteries for these tests?

Personally I would not allow any vented or liquid electrolyte lead acid battery anywhere near my test equipment without being in a proper enclosure with venting to the outside. Not for any length of time at least.  A proper battery box would be able to contain acid, used clamped terminal connections, be fused and actively vented.

I cannot imagine why smaller 4.5-8 amp hour sealed gel-cell batteries could not be used.  They would be much safer, can be placed very compactly right next to the circuit and would require less wire length to connect and interconnect.

The smaller amp hour rating would also reduce test duration times.



 

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4582 on: August 13, 2012, 08:26:57 PM »
Smaller batteries?

You mean like Tar Baby's 12 V, 5 A-H SLAs?

The ones I keep terminal protectors on when they aren't being used?
The ones where I use a 10 A inline fuse in the Tar Baby circuit?


Of course she won't use small batteries like those. They drop in voltage too fast for her to carry on her charade. And Tar Baby has proven that these small batteries just don't have what it takes..... they do discharge, so there must be something wrong with them.

Remember: a firm operating principle of the NERDS is Never to do any kind of testing that has the potential to falsify the holy Thesis.

But her thesis and her claims have already been falsified by her own data.... you can watch her battery voltage dropping in the several series of scopeshots she posted.

I think that if she included a package of all her scopeshots along with the daft manuscripts in one place.... people would be able to inspect the data, and they would conclude, correctly, that the whole affair is a delusion, since the data don't support the claims.


Have you checked out the "publication" of the second paper on Rossi's JNP lately?  Take a quick look at the Comments.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4583 on: August 13, 2012, 08:57:02 PM »
Well.... there you have it.

Ainslie won't even take the advice that .99 is giving her. Her "EXPERTS" have sold her on spending 150 ZAR (about $ 18.50 US)  for a 800 microFarad, 250 V electrolytic cap.

Which of course will be even more dangerous for her than one of the batteries, when it's fully charged. AND... it will require slow charging through a current limiting resistor when it's first hooked up.

AND.... .99's recommended 10uF, poly film caps would cost about two or three or four dollars US depending on quality and voltage rating, and would be perfectly safe to charge and handle even when charged.

Here is a very high quality cap that meets everybody's spec (except YKW and her "experts") and could be in her hands by Thursday without her even needing to leave her walled compound. Sure... it's expensive.... almost 39 ZAR.

http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en?mpart=B32674D3106K&vendor=495

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4584 on: August 13, 2012, 09:09:34 PM »
"Higher Farad number to handle the current flow".... what a bunch of misguided BS. Her "experts" told her that? She's talking to SALESMEN who only understand price, not performance, and who will sell her the most expensive product they can, without regard to its actual usage.


In my wireless transmitter prototype , the stack of 6, 10 nF poly film caps in parallel.... for a total of 60 nanoFarads, or 0.06 microFarads..... around 1/200 of .99's recommended 10 microFarads.... are handling upwards of 45 AMPS at 60-80 V,  500-1000 kHz. In other words, FAR FAR more POWER than Ainslie's little blocking cap will ever be called on to handle in her device.

The electrolytic cap she will be wasting her money on probably won't even work for the intended purpose... which of course is just what Ainslie wants.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4585 on: August 13, 2012, 09:23:46 PM »
I swear, this is better than "24".

What will Little Miss Mosfet come up with next? What equipment will she damage, how will she next illustrate her ignorance, what incompetencies will she next exhibit?

What drunken doggerel will she misspell next?


But even more importantly.....

WHEN WILL SHE DELIVER ON ANY OF HER PROMISES???

Where is that video that we were promised last week, showing her REFUTATION of picowatt's claim... and  mine, and everyone else's who has bothered to look.... that the scope traces in question indicate a blown, miswired, missing mosfet, or even A DIFFERENT SCHEMATIC?

WHERE is that video refutation? Or.... is it perhaps.... that we will NEVER be seeing that refutation.... because she simply cannot do it?


Her FAILURE to produce the refutation that she was so confident about, and has delayed for so long... months now.... and that was promised to us last Monday, then by the Weekend, then by dinner time Saturday.... has now disappeared completely.

This demonstration of course must be done with the EXACT CIRCUIT given as used before ... either one..... so the excuse of waiting for a capacitor or special shunt is invalid and not applicable. But I have already said that I would even accept a refutation performed with 36 volts in the battery pack, all other things being the same as before.

THEREFORE..... she clearly has acknowledged, by this grave omission.... that she was wrong, that the mosfet was indeed blown or miswired, since she can't reproduce the trace with a correct and functioning mosfet.

THEREFORE THE MANUSCRIPTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY--- or a very egregious scientific FRAUD..... or rather pseudoscientific FRAUD is being perpetrated on the research community. But then we knew that already.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4586 on: August 13, 2012, 09:26:39 PM »
Is it not possible to use smaller sealed lead acid batteries batteries for these tests?

Personally I would not allow any vented or liquid electrolyte lead acid battery anywhere near my test equipment without being in a proper enclosure with venting to the outside. Not for any length of time at least.  A proper battery box would be able to contain acid, used clamped terminal connections, be fused and actively vented.

I cannot imagine why smaller 4.5-8 amp hour sealed gel-cell batteries could not be used.  They would be much safer, can be placed very compactly right next to the circuit and would require less wire length to connect and interconnect.

The smaller amp hour rating would also reduce test duration times.


Hi PW,

There sure is smaller lead "liquid" acid batteries ......

Exide, GT-H, Group U1, 12 aH (RC 25Amps @ 25 minutes), 7.8 x 5.2 x 7.3 inches ; 16 pounds

This is the battery type others and myself have used (lawn tractor) instead of a "gel" type and are quite nice having lead lug positive and negative posts with a hole for "bolting" electrical connections.

FTC
 ;)

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4587 on: August 13, 2012, 09:35:17 PM »
Just so she knows, the reason electrolytic capacitors are being discouraged is that they can often have a lot of internal inductance.

Capacitors, essentially being two flat conductors laying side by side with a dielectric in between and stacked or coiled up, can have a large amount of internal inductance by nature of their physical construction.  At high frequencies this internal inductance can add reactance to the capacitor causing it to no longer act like a true capacitor.

If the capacitor she selected is in a very large package, i.e., larger than 20mm by 45mm, it is likely to be a large electrolytic that can have a lot of internal inductance and a high ESR.  The reason .99 specified the film cap that he did is because the data sheet states that it has a low inductance (athough no values are given).

The newer low ESR (equivalent series resistance) electrolytic capacitors typically used for switching supplies and rail decoupling in computers are fairly low in inductance.

A 10uF 35 volt capacitor of this type would only be 10mm by 15mm or so in size.  To eliminate the effects of any small inuctance that is inherent within the 10uF cap, a smaller value, very low inductance type capacitor such as a .1uF ceramic is parallel connected across the 10uF cap.  This allows a capacitor with only a "low" inductance to act as a "very low" inductance capacitor.





 

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4588 on: August 13, 2012, 09:44:21 PM »
Hi PW,

There sure is smaller lead "liquid" acid batteries ......

Exide, GT-H, Group U1, 12 aH (RC 25Amps @ 25 minutes), 7.8 x 5.2 x 7.3 inches ; 16 pounds

This is the battery type others and myself have used (lawn tractor) instead of a "gel" type and are quite nice having lead lug positive and negative posts with a hole for "bolting" electrical connections.

FTC
 ;)


I would only use a sealed type battery that does not vent and can can be tipped over around any of my equipment.  Battery acid fumes are highly corrosive.  If liquid electrolyte batteries need to be used, a sealed battery enclosure, actively vented to the outdoors, should be used and include inline fusing.

Even if all the fumes did was cause some switches to get noisey on my equip down the road, it would not be worth it.  Add to that the possibility of getting something across the batteries and again, a recipe for disaster.

How many here feel she would be qualified to bring a few tubs of sulfuric acid, some lead, and all that stored energy into their house?  Look at those battery clamp images again and think about that.

I don't see whay small gel-cells aren't considered.

ADDED:  Gel-cells can be had with bolt on lugs as well...  The entire battery stack made from small gel-cells would also be very compact allowing the use of short interconnects and lead wiring, hence lower wiring inductance.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4589 on: August 13, 2012, 10:39:50 PM »

I would only use a sealed type battery that does not vent and can can be tipped over around any of my equipment.  Battery acid fumes are highly corrosive.  If liquid electrolyte batteries need to be used, a sealed battery enclosure, actively vented to the outdoors, should be used and include inline fusing.

Even if all the fumes did was cause some switches to get noisey on my equip down the road, it would not be worth it.  Add to that the possibility of getting something across the batteries and again, a recipe for disaster.

How many here feel she would be qualified to bring a few tubs of sulfuric acid, some lead, and all that stored energy into their house?  Look at those battery clamp images again and think about that.

I don't see whay small gel-cells aren't considered.

ADDED:  Gel-cells can be had with bolt on lugs as well...  The entire battery stack made from small gel-cells would also be very compact allowing the use of short interconnects and lead wiring, hence lower wiring inductance.

Hi PW,

I can agree with your comments on the "liquid" acid and if not being careful can have huge problems .... like a gallon of household bleach or ammonia if dumped inside a home.

The problem is, most of the "alternative energy" devices we see use car batteries with "liquid" acid, having a proper scientific replication of any device all materials used should be as close as possible to the original device having said claim(s) ..... technically speaking. The other part chemically speaking is the electron transfer from plate to plate inside the battery that some say operate differently between "gell" and "liquid" as Rosemary has argued before one being more free to do the transferring. This of course is up to speculation but the "scientific replication" part kicks in here is my only concern.

I haven't had any problems and with the COP>17 circuit even with one of my custom made 10 ohm borosilicate glass resistor inductors with a 2 3/4" OD that had some healthy pulses going to the battery bank. The only real concern to me was doing the "recharge" mode the batteries got warm like any other battery being charged by a 120VAC wall outlet 12VDC charger @ 6 amps also having the proper air ventilation during the process and some baking soda handy.

Fuzzy
 :)