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: 83853
  • *Latest: jb45

  • *Total Posts: 521903
  • *Total Topics: 15552
  • *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 1460197 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4980 on: October 30, 2012, 02:20:23 AM »
Yes, there are. I was trying hard to find something nice to say about his work. At least he is trying to achieve consistent results, even if they are relatively meaningless. Precision is not accuracy, and both are required for credibility.

In the first place the measurements should not be done in ambient air. A container with insulated walls and a known quantity of a suitable fluid like mineral oil should be used to completely submerge the load for a first test and then the entire circuit including load for a definitive test. A means for stirring the liquid should be provided as well. Calibration runs on the container/stirrer using a known load dissipating power from a DC supply will indicate the "leak rate" of energy loss from the container and will even indicate the energy imparted by the stirring, by easily performed time and temperature measurements. Then the device is placed in the container and run, using known input power, until the chamber reaches an equilibrium temperature. The time course of the temperature rise and the eventual magnitude of the equilibrium temperature will tell the true power being dissipated by the circuit running submerged in the oil, and the total energy transferred during the time of the test. The entire process can be completely automated and controlled by, for example, an Arduino and the program "processing".

I believe MileHigh gave an excellent description of exactly how to go about doing this kind of calorimetry and calibration of the calorimetry chamber. Mineral oil is easy to get and although its heat capacity is less than that of water it is a good electrical insulator. Its lesser heat capacity is a good thing because that means that a given amount of energy input will cause a greater temperature rise in oil than it will in water: it is more sensitive. And of course operating in a sealed container of known leak rate is far superior to operating in air in the ambience, where drafts and convection currents and load hot spots and radiative transfer can never be adequately controlled.

It is helpful also to recall that power is not a conserved quantity. Power measurements are not the criterion for overunity performance; rather, the instantaneous power integrated over a suitable time period, resulting in a quantity of energy, is what needs to be "greater out than in". Measurements of the air temperature "over" a resistive element in an uncontrolled environment, or by a thermocouple actually in contact with the element, and trying to get a power figure from that, is a very typical Ainslie-style naive error. Nevertheless, even poor data must be correctly calculated; Ainslie's use of her air temperature measurements "over" the load, or in contact with it, are a bad joke, nothing more, and Gmeast shouldn't be emulating them when it is so easy to do it a bit more properly and get real results that actually yield an energy balance.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4980 on: October 30, 2012, 02:20:23 AM »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4981 on: October 30, 2012, 02:22:27 AM »
Again, thanks for the attention.
I guess that explains why Sir gmeast comes here so much; he's not getting enough attention, and certainly not over at Rose's sandbox.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4982 on: October 30, 2012, 03:08:54 AM »
Again, thanks for the attention.  Nice light show TK. 


I had typed out a nice, long response for all of you, but it's not worth it. Well I need to get back to my fakery.

Are you kidding me????  Did you not read my post before this one?????  Are you drinking the same water as Rose?  Are you Rose?????

Fakery????  Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
 What is wrong with people?  I wonder if he will say it again?  Any takers? ;) Unbelievable. ::)

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4982 on: October 30, 2012, 03:08:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4983 on: October 30, 2012, 02:58:04 PM »
Are you kidding me? ???  Did you not read my post before this one? ??? ?  Are you drinking the same water as Rose?  Are you Rose? ??? ?

Fakery? ???  Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
 What is wrong with people?  I wonder if he will say it again?  Any takers? ;) Unbelievable. ::)

Mags
Well,


I've removed my primary 'work' computer from the outside world for now.  If you were not such an assumptive fool, you'd check the IP's and see that I'm in the US and she's in SA.  Talk about delusional?


Yesterday I performed another test providing a second proof that that it works, and works consistently .. albeit not at COP>17, but it works.  I believe you guys are fearful that your hateful attacks will soon be moot and you'll have nothing else to do because I have succeeded in proving: IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS.  Sorry guys it really is valid.  I'm happy to have been a part of this. MAGS ... what in the world happened to you? I remember your participation in the Water Spark Plug, forums, the Bob Boyce-related forums, and others I dropped in on or participated in. I can't believe you have been taken in and turned toward evil by the likes of Turkey Krap and poynty-head.  And poynty-head, how dare you DIRTY John Henry Poynting's name by using it as your handle ... poynt99, HA! ... poyntLESS is more like it.  Why can I say these things?  ... because I have PROOF and TRUTH on my side now.  These two things REIGN VICTORIOUS OVER EVIL ... EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME.  Oh, by the way, I'm not religious in any way, so don't go down THAT road when next you ASSume you've one-upped me.  I think I'll get back to my FAKERY ... I know saying that really pisses you off MAGS.  This has been so much fun I can't tell ya'. I now know how to push each and every one of your guys' buttons.  "TRUTH" and "PROOF" ... powerful stuff! Learn it.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4984 on: October 30, 2012, 07:02:29 PM »
The only thing that gmeast is actually proving here time and time again, is how utterly immature and insecure he is.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4984 on: October 30, 2012, 07:02:29 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2025
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4985 on: October 30, 2012, 07:07:28 PM »
@gmeast,

As an alternate means to confirm your circuit's power consumption, you might consider replacing your batteries with a properly sized capacitor and connecting your DC supply to the capacitor to power the circuit.  A diode in the supply's positive leg would ensure that the supply can only provide power to the circuit and not load down any return power to the cap from your circuit.

If you believe the batteries are necessary, you can use the same set up with the batteries.  With the circuit powered off, set the supply so that it is just slightly below the battery voltage (plus one Vdrop from the series diode) so that no current flow is observed from the supply.  Connect the circuit and let it run until the battery voltage decreases below the DC supply voltage, at which time the supply will provide current to maintain the battery voltage.

With either setup, simply multiplying your power supply DC voltage by its indicated DC current will provide a fairly accurate indication of your circuit's power consumption in watts (within the accuracy of your supply's meters).


Just a suggestion,

PW




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4986 on: October 30, 2012, 07:25:39 PM »
Quote
Again, thanks for the attention.  Nice light show TK. 

Do you doubt that this "nice light show" device would produce MASSIVE overunity results using the methodology you are using? Let's recap: I am making a _continuous_ 4 to 6 inch arc of burning air plasma, that persists during the "off" times of the output pulsations, using a 24 volt input at under 7 amperes.

I CHALLENGE YOU to come anywhere near that OUTPUT PERFORMANCE using straight DC to your load of any kind.

In other words, comparison to a straight DC situation is inappropriate for my device, because it would give spurious results. And my device is a switched mosfet circuit in self-resonant oscillation, similar to the Ainslie circuit-- so similar, in fact that I have merely made a few alterations and edits to HER OWN PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC-- one of them anyway -- to illustrate my circuit. The main difference is that I am taking advantage of the real inductive properties of the load, properly, instead of thinking that I can use a diode somehow to capture an inductive spike and keep a battery charged, which has been proven false many times.

If you think that your load resistor heating up on plain old DC "less" than it does with the equivalent power to your circuit -- based on thermometry like you are doing -- is a significant result, then you should also agree that my situation with the device I show in that photograph is also significantly "OU", according to your protocols. I'm heating a final resistive (air) load to incandescence and conductivity by turning it into plasma over a distance of six inches on well under 200 watts measured input power. Let's see you do that with straight DC and compare the results using your methods.

But of course we know you won't accept this challenge or any of the others, because they would actually TEST your methodology, and your ego, GMEAST, donkey kisser sycophant, won't be able to handle it.

"IT WORKS IT WORKS IT WORKS".... but what does it do? Do the batteries discharge, or not? Ainslie claims that they do not. Does it boil water , dissipate 5.9 megaJoules in 90 minutes into under a liter of water.... or not? Ainslie claims that the NERD circuit does. Oh... .that's right, you aren't replicating an Ainslie circuit, are you. You just STARTED to replicate one, shown by your postings in a thread that was called Protocols of NERD and COP>17 Tests. But you soon dropped that project. Why? I know why.
To refresh your memory, some screenshots are included below.

Along with one other, illustrating that Ainslie cares nothing for the truth and blithely makes promises that she never intends to keep, even invoking God's will when she does so.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4986 on: October 30, 2012, 07:25:39 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4987 on: October 30, 2012, 09:26:43 PM »
Since Ainslie claims to be conducting some kind of testing currently, one wonders if she is still so abjectly muddled about the function and purpose and usage of the AC - DC coupling feature of her oscilloscope.

We've tried to explain to her that the "DC coupling" setting is normally used for _ALL_ types of input signals AC or DC when they are within the voltage range determined by the screen height and vertical amp attenuation setting. The "AC coupling" setting is used to block an unwanted, usually large, DC component to allow the viewing of a much smaller "ac" or time varying portion riding on top of that.

Say for example you have a DC power supply producing 250 volts DC from your AC main line input. But this power supply is for a precision instrument and the supplied DC voltage must not be allowed to "ripple" more than 50 milliVolts from its main 250 volt level. How to display that on an oscilloscope? There are two ways. One can set the vertical amplifier to read, say, 10 mV per division..... and then the 250 volt signal level will push the trace VERY far off the screen so that it must be returned by using the trace position or DC offset controls.... not a good idea really but possible in many cases.
-OR-
You can use the "AC Coupling" setting for what it was designed for, to block that 250 volt baseline DC and view only the ripple _AS IF_ it were a true AC signal, varying +/- around a zero volt baseline (which is now actually near the true 250 volt level of the main signal). Then you can use the 10 mV per division vertical setting and make sense of the ripple magnitude without messing up your trace position or offset settings. Simply by flicking the coupling switch or selecting it in the channel setup screen of your DSO. Note that the ripple on top of a 250 volt DC signal is NOT AC. The current never reverses direction, the voltage just rises and falls around some 250 volt reference level.
Ironically, if you use the "AC coupling"  setting on a true, symmetrical AC signal.... it will look exactly the same as if you view the same signal using "DC coupling".

I just happened to have my Tektronix RM503 down off the rack for a tune-up so I thought I'd show how this classic, precision low-frequency oscilloscope performs this mysterious function.

The first picture below shows the front panel section of the inputs to the vertical amplifier. Instead of using a polarity invert switch the 503 series allows you to use positive and negative inputs to switch the displayed polarity of a signal, or to add two signals together. But each input has its own "AC DC Ground" coupling setting switch, a three-position slide switch. The "ground" setting grounds that amplifier input but leaves the input signal itself open, not grounded or connected to anything.

And as shown in the second picture below, the AC coupling setting merely switches a precision 0.022 microFarad capacitor IN SERIES with the input signal. That is all it does. In every oscilloscope analog or digital old or new made by any manufacturer, this is how this miracle of signal processing is performed, with perhaps different cap values of course. In a DSO you can sometimes hear the relay clicking as your digital coupling selection is translated to an actual switch inside the instrument, switching the input to the capacitor (or to ground, if that's what you selected). I suppose it's possible to do this digitally as well... but why bother.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4988 on: October 30, 2012, 10:13:24 PM »
Nearly three months ago Ainslie said,
Quote
OK Guys and Girls,

We'll be doing our first video this afternoon - God willing.  That's in about 12 hours from now.  So, hopefully by supper time - in America - you'll have our first test on line.
Fail Number One. Suppertime came and went, in fact September came and went, and October has come and nearly gone without any video from Ainslie. Therefore one can only conclude that God is not willing. Or... that Ainslie herself is not able.
Quote
Our very first test is to challenge those repeated claims by picowatt at OU.com that sullied my own thread and then meandered through TK's disgusting thread.  The claim was that the voltage measured across Q1 had sufficient voltage to ensure that the switch was 'on' and therefore the battery should have delivered current flow.
Was it indeed? Sorry... no.  When someone who actually knows what they are doing speaks of the "voltage across" a transistor they will mean the Drain-Source voltage for mosfets or the Collector-Emitter voltage for bipolar transistors.  But this is not and never was the issue. We are talking about Q1 receiving a positive 12 volt signal to its GATE wrt source, and yet no current flows in the SOURCE - DRAIN channel, as shown by the scopeshots.
Quote
The evidence therefore should have been some voltage value across the shunt that was greater than zero.  I answered this - REPEATEDLY.  I mentioned that the in the first instance the coupling had not been set to AC. 
DC coupling is the appropriate setting for all channels of the oscilloscope in this case. This objection of Ainslie's is specious and once again indicates that she does not understand the AC-DC coupling feature of her own instrument.
Quote
And I explained that the voltage was further compromised by the justification of the 'off set' switch on the function generator.
The oscilloscope knows nothing of the function generator's settings. The scope only reads voltages, the voltages it sees at its probe tips wrt their grounds. That is all. The function generator is delivering +12 volts to the gate of Q1, as is shown by the oscilloscope. Whatever settings the function generator is set to, offset and amplitude of output, the unit is still doing just what the oscilloscope is measuring it to do: delivering +12 volts to the gate of a mosfet.... which then does NOT conduct in the drain-source channel as a functioning, properly wired mosfet would do. This set of voltages and events is clearly shown in Ainslie's scope shots, reproduced here and included in her "papers".
Quote
So.  Our first video will be to repeat that test.  We will show that we can generate that oscillation for a duration of very nearly 3 minutes -
This has never been questioned; it can in fact be generated for any duration desired BY APPLYING A DC BIAS SIGNAL just as the NERD Function Generator does, or a 555 timer will do, or a negative battery supply will do, for as long an interval as desired or even continuously.
Quote
with absolutely NO energy delivered by the battery supply source during the 'on' time of each switching cycle.
This claim has been refuted many times, first in Ainslie's own published scope shot data, then in simulations and actual builds by independent replicators, then by the independent chemical laboratory she sent her system to in the USA, and even by her current set of sycophants.
But our objection to the scopeshots is that when the Q1 transistor is supposed to be ON it is not conducting, therefore it is miswired or blown. If Ainslie isn't going to address the ACTUAL objections we make, what is the purpose of doing this (nonexistent) video "refutation" at all?
Quote
And we will show the difference between the AC and DC settings on that function generator.
Will you, now? Amazing.  My Function Generator has a DC output setting as well. But what does that have to do with anything? Oh... that's right I am supposed to KNOW what Ainslie means when she makes stupid typos or misspeaks like this. OK, then she is referring not to the FUNCTION GENERATOR but to the oscilloscope's AC and DC coupling settings. Great ! I'd like to see what she shows, and see if it corresponds in any way with what LeCroy and Tektronix test engineers tell us about those functions. That will be a real hoot.
Quote
Then.  At the conclusion of those tests we'll show you that all those MOSFETS are PERFECTLY in tact.
How? Just how does Ainslie intend to show that all those mosfets are PERFECTLY "in tact" (sic)? The finding that you can provide a PERFECTLY "in tact" N-channel IRFPG50 mosfet with a 12 volt gate signal, with 72 volts potential difference between drain and source and a 10 ohm load, and NOT have it conduct upwards of 5 amperes or more, would definitely be of interest to the designers at International Rectifier. Especially if you can apply those parameters to a mosfet that is improperly heatsunk, for periods of 18 to 20 seconds at a time and not have it heat up and blow out.
Quote
Kindest regards,
Rosie 
Ainslie is neither kind, nor does she hold her interlocutors in any "kind regard". In fact her contempt oozes from every word and every hypocritical closure like this one.

Where is the video promised here? Where is the refutation of any of the statements and analyses we've made here? Where is the demonstration that scopeshots like the one attached can be made with "PERFECTLY in tact" mosfets, using any combination of oscilloscope coupling settings and function generator output and offset settings?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4988 on: October 30, 2012, 10:13:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4989 on: October 31, 2012, 12:01:32 AM »
Well,


I've removed my primary 'work' computer from the outside world for now.  If you were not such an assumptive fool, you'd check the IP's and see that I'm in the US and she's in SA.  Talk about delusional?


Yesterday I performed another test providing a second proof that that it works, and works consistently .. albeit not at COP>17, but it works.  I believe you guys are fearful that your hateful attacks will soon be moot and you'll have nothing else to do because I have succeeded in proving: IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS, IT WORKS.  Sorry guys it really is valid.  I'm happy to have been a part of this. MAGS ... what in the world happened to you? I remember your participation in the Water Spark Plug, forums, the Bob Boyce-related forums, and others I dropped in on or participated in. I can't believe you have been taken in and turned toward evil by the likes of Turkey Krap and poynty-head.  And poynty-head, how dare you DIRTY John Henry Poynting's name by using it as your handle ... poynt99, HA! ... poyntLESS is more like it.  Why can I say these things?  ... because I have PROOF and TRUTH on my side now.  These two things REIGN VICTORIOUS OVER EVIL ... EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME.  Oh, by the way, I'm not religious in any way, so don't go down THAT road when next you ASSume you've one-upped me.  I think I'll get back to my FAKERY ... I know saying that really pisses you off MAGS.  This has been so much fun I can't tell ya'. I now know how to push each and every one of your guys' buttons.  "TRUTH" and "PROOF" ... powerful stuff! Learn it.

"I've removed my primary 'work' computer from the outside world for now.  If you were not such an assumptive fool, you'd check the IP's and see that I'm in the US and she's in SA.  Talk about delusional?"

lol. Ok. I was just relating you to Rose because she does the same stuff. Reading my post and twisting it for, what ever reasons. Anyone here can attest that I was not associating you with fakery. 


"MAGS ... what in the world happened to you? I remember your participation in the Water Spark Plug, forums, the Bob Boyce-related forums, and others I dropped in on or participated in. I can't believe you have been taken in and turned toward evil by the likes of Turkey Krap and poynty-head.  And poynty-head, how dare you DIRTY John Henry Poynting's name by using it as your handle ... poynt99, HA! ... poyntLESS is more like it."

Nothing happened to me other than I finally found out how Rose really is. That is 'our' connection here. I am actually trying to help you. But you cant see that in my posts. Somehow you see me attacking you.

As I remember I had only dealt with one thread that involved HHO and that one was a coil around a test tube filled with water highly saturated with sodium hydroxide. Supposedly applying the right freq and power level to the coil causes the reaction to happen in the solution itself without electrical contact, as sodium hydrochloride is a metal.

Ive read on Bob Boyce, but never was in a thread of a forum on that subject. Unless you can prove it. ;)   So are you making that up? ;)   Why is that?

As I see it, the only reason you have anything against Poynt is because of Roses indoctrination you fell into. Can you prove and show that Poynt has pointed you in the wrong direction at any time? I would 'really' be interested in seeing proof of that. If he did suggest something, did you just do otherwise just for spite?  I dont think you can produce such evidence. I do believe Rose is really pissed and is pulling your strings like a puppet. You are her mule. Good luck with all that.



"Why can I say these things?  ... because I have PROOF and TRUTH on my side now.  These two things REIGN VICTORIOUS OVER EVIL ... EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME.  Oh, by the way, I'm not religious in any way, so don't go down THAT road when next you ASSume you've one-upped me.  I think I'll get back to my FAKERY ... I know saying that really pisses you off MAGS.  This has been so much fun I can't tell ya'. I now know how to push each and every one of your guys' buttons.  "TRUTH" and "PROOF" ... powerful stuff! Learn it."

You think Im pissed? I didnt see any  >:( in my post, just ??? .    ;) And Im the one thats delusional?   Go down the religious road? I fight for God just about every day on the Probality Of God thread.  Lots of twisted evil over there.  But hey, you brought it up. ;)

Well im glad you have fun thinking you are pushing our buttons.  lol and you call me a fool.

I may not have put out a YT vid in a while but I am always working on stuff. Just busted apart a pancake motor from a car cooling fan. Will be posting pics here this evening. After laundry. Not saying it and 6 months later still nothing like you know who.

It has a very interesting architecture. A flat armature with windings encased in plastic(with windings visible on the surface of the plastic casting) and commutator on the shaft...  Ill be posting it later.

Anyways, be well G. Come back and bash me for nothing some more when ever you get the time. ;) The only person fooling anyone is yourself. ;) The readers here can fact check your posts regarding me. Its simple. Some here can do this amazing thing called 'remembering' also, in case you havnt heard of it. ;) You are making memories.  ;)


Mags

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4990 on: October 31, 2012, 12:11:59 AM »

Fakery? ???  Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
 What is wrong with people?  I wonder if he will say it again?  Any takers? ;) Unbelievable. ::)

Mags

I win. Pay up.  ;D   I could make an easy living predicting this guy. ;)

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4990 on: October 31, 2012, 12:11:59 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4991 on: October 31, 2012, 01:24:22 AM »
@Mags:

 ;)

(I used two of these in one of my best Bonetti machines; they allow one to see that the machine will also work as a motor, by turning backwards on its residual charge, because these motors don't "cog" at all when they aren't energised. Very interesting designs indeed.)

Yours sound like they might be a bit different though. This one's commutated on the face of the armature, very odd. But it works great for my purposes.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4992 on: October 31, 2012, 01:57:24 AM »
@AlienSigns.....

OUCH!!

 ;D

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4993 on: October 31, 2012, 02:46:09 AM »
@gmeast,

As an alternate means to confirm your circuit's power consumption, you might consider replacing your batteries with a properly sized capacitor and connecting your DC supply to the capacitor to power the circuit.  A diode in the supply's positive leg would ensure that the supply can only provide power to the circuit and not load down any return power to the cap from your circuit.

If you believe the batteries are necessary, you can use the same set up with the batteries.  With the circuit powered off, set the supply so that it is just slightly below the battery voltage (plus one Vdrop from the series diode) so that no current flow is observed from the supply.  Connect the circuit and let it run until the battery voltage decreases below the DC supply voltage, at which time the supply will provide current to maintain the battery voltage.

With either setup, simply multiplying your power supply DC voltage by its indicated DC current will provide a fairly accurate indication of your circuit's power consumption in watts (within the accuracy of your supply's meters).


Just a suggestion,

PW


Hi picowatt,


Thanks for your suggestion.  I do, as you had noted, believe the batteries are necessary.  For the last two days I have been testing what (I think) you suggested above.  If you look at the last bunch of stuff I posted on Rosie's site, I show some discharge curves ... one for the batteries over a 6-1/2 hour period (light blue 200Ohm load)) and another is the circuit running the RL (purple curve).  The curves have substantially the same slope for much of the run.  This simply means that they are discharging the battery at the same rates, the slope is everything in this analysis.  The KNOWN power of the battery curve is 3.21Watts at the selected voltage data point.  But the circuit is producing 4.21Watts to maintain the equilibrium differential temperature of 34C as evidenced by the differential temperature calibration on RL that IMMEDIATELY followed the circuit test using a precision DC power supply.


As the second test of power consumption, I hooked the DC power supply up to the batteries through protection diodes at B(+) and B(-).  I ran the batteries down to the data point on the curves, 25.34V, and then adjusted the power supply to limit voltage and let the current float to whatever load is being put on the supply.  The battery voltage was maintained at 25.2V to 25.5V and the load on the power supply remained at 3.3Watts for more than 16 hours before the current began to climb (very slowly). This second test fully supported the first test.   I'm using two 12V 7Ah batteries in series for my 24V bank. I chose this size of battery so I could have a measurable discharge rate.  That has proven to be a valuable measure in my testing.  My testing suggests that there is something fundamentally sound about the technology.


Rosie used big batteries.  Her discharge rate was likely undetectable.  All I'm doing is exploring the possibility:  that for a given electrical wattage 'into' an inductive resistive heater, you can get a greater equivalent wattage 'out' in the form of HEAT.  THIS REQUIRES THE BATTERIES TO DISCHARGE! That's what this is all about.  Not your agenda or Rosie's agenda or anyone's agenda ... just pure, simple research.  NONE of my measurements are made with scopes or poynty-principles any longer, just battery voltages and time. I now have the results that suggest that something just might be valid here. 


Just get off of the HATE WAGON.  All kidding aside, there's obviously a collective intelligence here.  'HATE' is a poor, ineffective and wasteful way to channel it.


 Thanks picowatt for chiming in.  Regards,


GME

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4994 on: October 31, 2012, 03:39:15 AM »
Battery voltages, time, and.... TEMPERATURE. It is your measurements of temperature vs time and your interpretation of them that are now at issue, since you are choosing to ignore other electrical parameters. That's fine as long as you do proper calorimetry, which you are not yet doing.

Determining the actual wattage your load dissipates using time-temperature profiles can be done accurately with a bit more effort than your simple setup, and you've been told how to do it, and you can find essentially the same methods as we suggest, in other sources for amateur scientists and academic research as well.

 

OneLink