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 Members: 84092
  • *Latest: Fons

  • *Total Posts: 895753
  • *Total Topics: 15756
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1565534 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4785 on: September 07, 2012, 11:21:17 PM »
Yousaidwhat cannot dare to explain why Ainslie's own scope data clearly show her  battery voltage declining in exactly the "classically" expected manner during several sets of trials, while at the same time Ainslie claims that it doesn't.

On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a  mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series. THE BATTERY VOLTAGE HAS DROPPED BY 1.3 VOLTS IN A SINGLE EVENING OF TESTING ... which indicates a severe drain and NO RECHARGE OR PREVENTION OF DISCHARGE.

On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.

On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, less than 10 minutes later.

The scopeshots are available for inspection here:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/

In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts. So from the 12th of April to the 30th of April, during several sessions of testing, the battery voltage DECREASED from 63.8 volts down to 62.0 volts, as shown in AINSLIE'S OWN DATA, the most reliable of all her data, the mean battery voltage as measured on the LeCroy oscilloscope. A voltage decrease of NEARLY TWO VOLTS, in just three days of testing. And with silver calcium lead acid batteries, that actually indicates a substantially DISCHARGED battery, not one that is at and remaining at a full charge level.

Come on, YOUSAIDWHAT.... explain this away as being consistent with Ainslie's mendacious claims about "no loss of potential" from the battery.

You cannot.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4785 on: September 07, 2012, 11:21:17 PM »

Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4786 on: September 08, 2012, 12:01:09 PM »
Just a quick snapshot of some numbers.

Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4787 on: September 10, 2012, 08:02:57 AM »
TK,

I've really enjoyed these power transmitter vids of yours:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTFeoJpkYBM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ogTf3S3r8
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnwDh4CsD-c

It's great seeing the different applications (underwater SNM; HHO buoyancy control; Pulse motor driver). The practical uses seem to be endless! Thank you for sharing with us the things that you do.

polln8r

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4787 on: September 10, 2012, 08:02:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4788 on: September 10, 2012, 09:39:56 AM »
Thanks! I too find the power transmission system fascinating. There are a lot of similar systems on YT, some with very nice construction.
Since my receiver system produces smooth DC power with good current, it will power just about any kind of load you like. I was especially surprised at how well it worked doing straight electrolysis with a spiral copper electrode and a little magnet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2kehvxB_A
I haven't made this video public because I was so startled that I uttered an expletive that I didn't delete. So you need the link to view it, it doesn't show up on searches on my channel. The spiral electrode with magnet idea comes from... someone we know, and thank.

ETA: I see that DrStiffler has shown a different, capacitively coupled, submerged diode RF system that electrolyzes some water with tiny bubbles output. Wireless... OK. Sure. Even though there are wires, and not much current. I am happy to concede that DrStiffler has shown some electrolysis without directly hooking power wires to his diodes, but rather using a home-made capacitor to couple the RF into them.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4789 on: September 10, 2012, 09:46:58 AM »
Ainslie's a hoot, isn't she?

Claiming that the solid evidence for battery voltage decreasing over trials is IRRELEVANT to her claim that it doesn't, or is somehow in error... more in error than her own use of the same measurements.... even though it's from the numbers in boxes on her superdooper LeCroy Etch-a-Sketch oscilloscope, which never makes an error.

I wonder if she would claim that the same evidence is IRRELEVANT if it indicated battery voltage increasing by the same amount.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4789 on: September 10, 2012, 09:46:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline polln8r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4790 on: September 10, 2012, 10:06:07 AM »
I know, right?

"The batteries are shown to be not discharging. If it is found that they really are it won't matter, because the measurements say they aren't."  (not a direct quote). (Indirect quote continues...) "Therefore, we can assume that the measurements are an anomaly, which means that we have found something truly incredible.

Incredibly anomalous measurements. Indeed.

Edited: Forgot to say thanks for the link. Expletive? I didn't hear shit.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4791 on: September 11, 2012, 11:33:01 PM »
Hmmm.... there seems to be some confusion all around about just how to calculate equivalent heating power in a circuit that is receiving a DC pulse train or an AC rectangular wave or oscillations.

Perhaps these links will help. The first document has been posted before, I think, and the Wiki seems to agree with it.
http://www.eznec.com/Amateur/RMS_Power.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square


At this point I think the main discrepancy to be accounted for is the accuracy and false precision in gmeast's quoted data. There is no way that anyone can accurately measure heating power down to the tenth of a milliWatt using tabletop hobby equipment, sorry. The latest actual results, calculated using average power = V(rms)^2/R or V(rms) x I(rms) as is proper according to the links, give a result consistent with unity performance, within the limits of measurement accuracy. And without seeing calibrations against real standards, the accuracy in the third or fourth least significant digit of any tabletop instrument is questionable and should be confirmed by multiple measurements with different instruments if possible.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4791 on: September 11, 2012, 11:33:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4792 on: September 11, 2012, 11:44:58 PM »
I sure wish I could see gmeast's waveform shots. I'm kind of concerned still about his use of the Drain voltage and how it's being interpreted. I think the drain voltage is important if used right. But it has proven to be tricky for Ainslie fans to interpret. In the Ainslie circuit the drain voltage will be HIGH at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF and the load is not carrying current, and will drop to a voltage that reflects the total resistance of the circuit when the mosfet is ON and the load... and the mosfet....are carrying current.
Also, is gmeast aware that the Rdss ON of an  IRFPG50 is at least 2 ohms? That's not chopped liver in a circuit with a total on-state DC resistance on the order of 12-14 ohms. The mosfet will be dissipating a significant part of the total circuit power dissipation.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4793 on: September 12, 2012, 12:04:05 AM »
. checking math -- I agree with the Pavg = Vrms x Irms , and that for a rectangular, all-positive waveform Vrms = Vpeak x sqrt(dutycycle) , so I don't know what .99 is meaning in this case... but...
--
Actually, running gmeast's numbers using a voltage drop across the mosfet of 1.6 volts, so the load only sees 24 volts peak, 12 rms, I get a better result of 1.09 or 109 percent efficiency compared to the DC case.
Close enough to unity to demand more precise and accurate measurements.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4793 on: September 12, 2012, 12:04:05 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4794 on: September 12, 2012, 01:59:04 AM »
TK,

It appears that Greg has measured/calculated Iavg and Irms to both be around 400ma.  So, average power from the battery would be Vbatt times Iavg, which is how .99 arrived at the 10.5 watts from the battery figure (25.6x.410).

Greg also measured/calculated the Vrms across Rload and then multiplied that number by the Iavg (or Irms, both of which were in close agreement) of ca. 400ma, and arrived at the power dissipated in Rload.

I am actually quite impressed that his measured/calculated power in Rload and the equivalent power he measured for Rload using his DC power supply and the measured temp rises are in such close agreement.  My hat is off to him for that.

However, to measure the power delivered by the battery, I agree with .99 in that Iavg should be multiplied by Vbatt to arrive at Pavg from the battery. 

It is somewhat difficult to follow along seeing only the text in the posts.  As you say, too bad the schematics and 'scope shots are unavailable.

Oh well...
 

PW

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4795 on: September 12, 2012, 02:09:34 AM »
The 10.5W Pin is correct. ;)

Here are the pics:

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4795 on: September 12, 2012, 02:09:34 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4796 on: September 12, 2012, 02:20:59 AM »
The 10.5W Pin is correct. ;)

Here are the pics:

.99,

I suspect that the measured/calculated Iavg may be a bit high due to CSR inductance. The hazard of using such a low value CSR (.1 ohm) is that just a few tens of nHy's can produce a very significant error.

I would suggest repeating the measurements using a 1 ohm non-inductive CSR and comparing the results. 

Looking at various non-inductive resistor manufacturers' data, many simply state inductance as less than 100nHy for their non-inductive resistors, which for a .1 ohm resistor can be a very significant error.  The best I could find was from Caddock, and they state their's as 10nHy when measured .2" from the package.  Even this small inductance can be very significant relative to the .1 ohm value depending on the frequencies involved.  Using a higher value CSR, such as 1R, reduces the percentage of error due to inductance.

PW

ADDED:  I had assumed that with Greg using a gate driver the transitions would be much cleaner and at least 70-80% efficiency acheived.  Having now seen the waveforms, possibly this is a bit optimistic and the measured 50% is indeed closer to reality.   

 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4797 on: September 12, 2012, 04:53:13 AM »
Hmm thanks.... I'll mull over the scopeshot
But what about the Wiki, in the image I attached above, where the actual derivation is given, showing that for a pulsed DC signal, all positive, the Pavg=Irms x Vrms, and the Vrms is given by sqrt(duty cycle) x Vbatt? What am I missing.... the derivation is right there and it makes sense to me and it even explicitly says that this is how the equivalent to a steady DC is determined.....
Is the Wiki wrong.... It even agrees with the Ham .pdf.... so what am I missing, please walk me through it.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4798 on: September 12, 2012, 05:07:13 AM »
@.99.... that scope shot is the signal from the mosfet Drain, with respect to the negative rail?? Or is that the signal "across the load", with the probe on the drain side and the reference on the battery side, or vice versa? I'm not getting it. And with a gate driver.... I am also surprised to see such a messy signal anywhere. Is it that the PG50 just can't keep up at the frequency chosen?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4799 on: September 12, 2012, 02:11:13 PM »
Hmm thanks.... I'll mull over the scopeshot
But what about the Wiki, in the image I attached above, where the actual derivation is given, showing that for a pulsed DC signal, all positive, the Pavg=Irms x Vrms, and the Vrms is given by sqrt(duty cycle) x Vbatt? What am I missing.... the derivation is right there and it makes sense to me and it even explicitly says that this is how the equivalent to a steady DC is determined.....
Is the Wiki wrong.... It even agrees with the Ham .pdf.... so what am I missing, please walk me through it.

The power in question is the input power. If the circuit is a "black box", and the supply is DC, how would you go about determining PinAVG?

 

OneLink