Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 897362
  • *Total Topics: 15812
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1606479 times)

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4695 on: August 25, 2012, 06:15:06 PM »
WRT @gmeast 's results he claims that:

"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing, and these are small batteries ... 7Ah each and two in series for a nominal 24VDC & 7Ah and they are running everything."

Looking at the rough guide here:

http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/batteries/battery-voltage-discharge.php

a difference of 0.8V can represent a total discharge of anything up to 75% of the capacity of the original.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4695 on: August 25, 2012, 06:15:06 PM »

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4696 on: August 25, 2012, 07:10:55 PM »
WRT @gmeast 's results he claims that:

"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing, and these are small batteries ... 7Ah each and two in series for a nominal 24VDC & 7Ah and they are running everything."

Looking at the rough guide here:

http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/batteries/battery-voltage-discharge.php

a difference of 0.8V can represent a total discharge of anything up to 75% of the capacity of the original.

Although I have not seen his circuit or test setup (unable to "view" anything over there), he has mentioned frequencies as high as 12MHz or better.  Hopefully he is aware that the possibility of measurement errors due to inductance is 5 to 6 times greaterat 12MHz than the effects of inductance on measurement errors in the NERD circuit with its lower frequency.

In looking for a non-inductive resistor, the best I could find that actually provided inductance data had a stated 10nHy inductance when measured/connected .2" from the package.  Many of the manufacturers of non-inductive resistors whose data I looked at merely specified "less than 100nHy" for their non-inductive resistors.

Using the 10nHy figure, at 12MHz, that's .733 ohms that must be added to a CSR value using the best non-inductive resistor I could find (possibly there are better).  If the CSR used is 5 ohms or less, that .733 ohms represents a significant error.  With a CSR of 1 ohm or less, that .733 ohms represents a huge error.

Does anyone know what value gmeast is using for his CSR or load resistor?  Has he given any inductance values for either?  Has anyone seen an image of his set up? (short leads, etc)

PW

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4697 on: August 25, 2012, 07:36:15 PM »
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on Yesterday at 04:40:59

Quote

    And Poynty - here's another thing I've thought of.  The impedance is INCREASED - those Ohmic values INCREASE - as the frequency increases.  Conversely, it would be LESSENED as the frequency is slower.


As I surmised, and as she again recently states, she thinks she is describing capacitive reactance in the above quote.  However, the above quote describes the exact opposite of the action of capacitive reactance.

Capacitive reactance decreases as the applied frequency increases.

Using and correcting her words, it should have read as:

"The impedance is DECREASED- those Ohmic values DECREASE- as the frequency increases" 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4697 on: August 25, 2012, 07:36:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4698 on: August 25, 2012, 07:58:17 PM »
PW,

Regarding the older replication, I think this says it all:

Quote
"It's important to note that the battery voltage has not dropped more than 0.8V in more than 30 hours of testing, and these are small batteries ... 7Ah each and two in series for a nominal 24VDC & 7Ah and they are running everything."[\quote]

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4699 on: August 25, 2012, 08:11:44 PM »
PW,

Regarding the older replication, I think this says it all:

Yes,  I noticed that too. A claim giving data showing a definite DISCHARGE but interpreted exactly backwards.

Also note that gmeast has confirmed that the short ON duty cycle claimed in the Quantum article does not produce substantial load heat, just as I said long ago, that the given 555 timer makes an exactly inverted duty cycle, and that he is using a completely different circuit, with mosfet gate driver chips, a flyback diode, a different oscillator circuit, a different load arrangement, different operating frequency and very different duty cycle than is claimed in the Quantum article he is supposedly "replicating".

-a-Doodle-Doo!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4699 on: August 25, 2012, 08:11:44 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4700 on: August 25, 2012, 08:23:37 PM »
PW,

Regarding the older replication, I think this says it all:


.99,

I believe gmeast recently discussed some power measurements using the Vdrop across the CSR and and another using the Vdrop across Rload.

I was just curious as to what those components were, and what his layout looked like relative to the higher frequencies he mentioned (i.e., short lead lengths, etc. or another "clip lead" set-up).

PW

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4701 on: August 25, 2012, 08:41:29 PM »
He's using a circuit, a clock, a load, and operating parameters that are nothing like the "experiment" he claims to be "replicating".... the Quantum article refers.

The only similarity is that it is an N-channel mosfet switching a high-side load.... and that he is making the same measurement errors, although not the same circuit errors, that she did lo those many years ago.

C O C K - a - Doodle - Doo.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4701 on: August 25, 2012, 08:41:29 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4702 on: August 26, 2012, 01:55:51 AM »
In response to her latest "corrected" statement:

Indeed, the effects of capacitive reactance, as they pertain to AC current flow thru a MOSFET's intrinsic capacitances, are less significant at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies.

The observed 1-2 amps at 2.5MHz in the NERD waveforms can pass thru the MOSFET capacitances irregardless of the MOSFET's on or off state.

At a lower frequency of 1KHz, much less AC current can flow thru the MOSFET capacitances, as their reactance is 2500 times higher at 1KHz than at 2.5MHz (hence, 2500 times less AC current can flow via these capacitive paths at 1KHz than at 2.5MHz).

One cannot, however, use the fact that little AC current can flow thru the MOSFET capacitances at LOW frequencies as an argument that somehow proves that AC current cannot pass thru the MOSFET capacitances at HIGH frequencies.

To do so is to ignore the effects of capacitive reactance all together.


At lower frequencies, as DC conditions are approached, very little current flow thru the MOSFET capacitances will be observed.  This is why it was important to understand the circuit's DC conditions, where capacitance and inductance have little or no effect, before moving on to understanding the more complex AC conditions, where capacitance and inductance play a major role.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4703 on: August 26, 2012, 02:40:13 AM »
And by the way, correcting her math:

The reactance of 2800pF at 1.3MHz= 43.72 ohms (correct!)

The reactance of 2800pF at 1.3KHz= 43,723 ohms (that's forty three thousand seven hundred twenty three ohms, not 437.182 ohms as she states)

As for the rest of her "arguments" and "logic" based on her very limited understanding of electronics, she is simply wrong.

She should quit arguing and attempt to learn...


   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4703 on: August 26, 2012, 02:40:13 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4704 on: August 26, 2012, 03:44:49 AM »
What is most astounding to me is that she makes these egregious and elementary errors, draws mistaken conclusions based on the errors, rants and insults people based on her mistaken conclusions, then when the errors are unequivocally exposed and corrected for her.... she doesn't change her mistaken conclusions or apologise for her insults and rants. And she still clings to conclusions drawn from erroneous calculations even unto this day.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4705 on: August 26, 2012, 12:05:49 PM »
I've attempted to register at RA's forum to respond to some of the very obvious points directly. This involves a (perhaps manual) approval step. We'll see.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4705 on: August 26, 2012, 12:05:49 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4706 on: August 26, 2012, 04:39:54 PM »
Quote

The oscillation frequency at 1.3 MHz may enable the flow of 4 amps through the gate leg of Q2 to the negative rail of the battery supply.  But IF it was passing this current then the voltage would needs must move both above and below zero to show evidence of this.  It does not.  It remains below zero and oscillates around this value at a maximum of 1 volt peak to peak.


Apparently she has yet to learn how to read her own schematic.

Looking at her schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the probed end of the CSR.  Therefore, the voltage indicated by the CSR trace is also the voltage at the gate of Q2.  The CSR voltage does indeed oscillate above and below ground, therefore, so does the gate of Q2.

Again, the gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR, therefore, the voltage at the gate of Q2 is essentially the same as the indicated CSR voltage (ignoring the effects of lead inductance between the gate of Q2 and the CSR).


Teaching her electronics is like trying to help her put together a 500 piece jig saw puzzle.  A single piece of the puzzle is explained to her and she is told where it goes.  She argues for months about that single puzzle piece but, in the end, she reluctantly places the piece where it belongs on the board.  Another puzzle piece is explained to her, and again, after much argument, that piece is placed on the board.  After a dozen pieces or so are placed on the board in this manner, she starts going back and removing puzzle pieces from the board and throwing them back in the box, apparently because she believes she knows better.  In the end, she will never get to see the "big picture".

Inductive reactance was explained to her a long time ago, yet she recently denied its existence.  The fact that the voltage at the gate of Q2 is essentially the same as the observed CSR voltage was also explained to her months ago, yet even now she does not see how they are connected.  I doubt she actually understands how Q2 is turned on when a negative voltage is applied to its source terminal, though that too was explained over and over. 

Apparently, she continues to throw puzzle pieces back in the box.

She will never see the "big picture"... 

« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 07:00:05 PM by picowatt »

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4707 on: August 26, 2012, 07:02:54 PM »
I've attempted to register at RA's forum to respond to some of the very obvious points directly. This involves a (perhaps manual) approval step. We'll see.

I see that went well.  An insult and deletion in very short order!


Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4708 on: August 26, 2012, 07:54:30 PM »
In fact posts were constantly deleted under my feet.

I have now been banned for being "disruptive"


The sum total of my posts involved:

1) Asking what make and model Greg's batteries were

2) Pointing out that 0.4v is strong evidence of a significant decrease in capacity

3) Asserting that accepting that this is the case doesn't reflect badly on @gmeast.


At no point in my posting was I insulting or used profanity of any kind, with the exception that I stated I did not want to engage in smalltalk or to spend my time correcting RA's misconceptions.

I would recommend Evernote and it's browser plugin as a fine way of recording the state of a web-page before it is altered for whatever reason.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4709 on: August 26, 2012, 07:57:01 PM »
I am also apparently banned by IP address from viewing.


In your dreams...

 

OneLink