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

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

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: 83474
  • *Latest: linpi

  • *Total Posts: 513258
  • *Total Topics: 15278
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1342638 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2012, 10:10:36 PM »
Oh yeah there's nothing like a good VDG. Yours sounds like it's bordering on dangerous... a proton accelerator kind of thingy....
We tried to reproduce an antigravity claim once by making 2 opposite-charged VDGs with the same physical dimensions you describe, but without the N2-filled column; we regularly got 4-foot long discharges along the belts. We did use some active spray too but it really wasn't needed for our purposes. We tested the voltage by using _giant_ spheres in a calibrated gap arrangement suspended from the ceiling and were able to get 1.2 honest to goodness megavolts tension between the top terminals. The things would make every metal projection in the entire lab warehouse section start spraying corona. In the dark it was somewhere between awesome and really scary.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2012, 10:10:36 PM »

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2012, 10:19:53 PM »
TK,

Based on my experience, I would vote "REALLY" scarey for your setup...

Only knocked myself out once...  It could really reach out and grab you if the discharge term was set too far away...

Dry weather was awesome.

Sorry for the off topic...

PW

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #62 on: March 28, 2012, 02:33:30 AM »
LEDs of Doom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8YQMHXR-Q

What is really interesting to me is that, doing nothing else other than using a bipolar pulse or a positive offset on the negative pulse, the Q1 mosfet turns fully and cleanly on during the NON_oscillating phase and heats up the load like an electric coffeepot with 1.5 Amps or more draw as indicated by my series DMM at the battery. When I use a strictly negative pulse so that only the Q2 transistors are doing anything, the oscillations pass only about 50 or 60 milliamps of current.... and with my nice insulated container, this seems to be enough to _keep the thing from cooling off_, until the next bout of "tuning" and turning some mosfets fully on while "tuning" and not recording data, and the load is carrying over an amp of current and heating up like an espresso pot.
And this happens during the part of the cycle where there are NO oscillations... the part where nobody is looking.

And of course as long as the oscillations themselves have sufficient amplitude they will light up the LEDs, both of them, regardless of whether the Q1 is switching cleanly or not.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #62 on: March 28, 2012, 02:33:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #63 on: March 28, 2012, 02:40:49 AM »
Now I'm wondering if any of the NERD published data... by which I mean scope shots or actual spreadsheet dumps from the scope.... do any of their data show the characteristic drain behaviour that I have identified, that shows one or more mosfets turning fully on during the _non-oscillation_ phase of the waveform cycle?

That is, instead of the non-oscillation portion of the drain trace being at or close to battery voltage, it appears instead at or near the ground or zero volt reference level?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2012, 03:39:56 AM »
Hey TK:

Nice little clip on the LEDs of Doom.  I am going to be a stick in the mud on you.  Yes the LEDs showed AC current no doubt, but it would have been preferable to have wired then in series with the CSR.  In series with the CSR they are a "sensor" for the series current flow, whereas in parallel they are sensing when the voltage across the CSR exceeds a certain threshold in either direction.  Of course that clearly indicates AC current.  In parallel they also "interfere" with the functioning of the CSR.  Please don't mind me I am just being picky.  The clip is still definitive and shows that there is AC going through the CSR.  Plus when Q1 turns on like you said and if the LEDs are in series then you could blow an LED.

When you think about it, the MOSFET array when oscillating (No Q1 action) is a black box that is taking pulsing DC current in on the input side and generating an AC current signal on the output side.  Inside the black box you have an oscillator, DC in, AC out.

My "LEDs of Doom" concept is to have back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery supply.  Remember that Rosie Posie is excited about the notion that current is being returned to the battery while the Q2 array is oscillating.

So you can envision the following:  The "Deluxe LEDs of Doom:" Back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery, and your back-to-back LEDs in parallel with the CSR.  You power up and you see pulsing unidirectional current flow from the positive feed from the battery and bidirectional current flow through the CSR.  That would be most interesting and thought provoking for some people out there.

Think about this:  The RATs are looking at the CSR and seeing AC current through the CSR.  Therefore the conclusion is that "current is being returned to the battery."  But what's really happening is that inside the circuit there is a black box that takes pulsing DC current in and outputs AC current out.  So it would appear that this engine inside the black box is throwing them off.

Disclaimer:  This is all preliminary and food for thought.  I am not on the bench and that always has to be factored in.  I have clearly been tripped up in the past and there is a 100% chance that I will be tripped up in the future.  I simply can't think about all angles all the time and sometimes I am simply wrong.

When you think about it though there is a certain elegance to this.  It basically says that a CSR in series with the positive lead from the battery will NOT be in agreement with the CSR in the RAT circuit.  We know that there is a fundamental flaw in the RAT circuit because there are two current return paths to the battery, through the existing CSR and through the function generator.  I am assuming that Poynt's reverse-engineering of the RAT circuit in the RAT demo clip is the definitive description of the topology of the circuit.  In addition, we know that there is an engine inside a black box in the RAT circuit that takes pulsing DC current in and then outputs AC current through the CSR.

So the Deluxe LEDs of Doom test, assuming it indicates what I think it will indicate, would tend to support this preliminary theory.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2012, 03:39:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #65 on: March 28, 2012, 03:43:33 AM »
More data:
Following picowatt's suggestion of trying a DC gate stimulus "tickle" to try to get oscillations without the need for the FG.... I took a 50 ohm resistor and used a jumper to connect it to the board where the FG's leads were connected. Then I "tickled" the positive terminal of the battery at the negative end of my 3-stack.

First I "tickled" the place where the FG's positive lead connects. This turned on the Q1 mosfet hard and clean and it stayed on, essentially a direct short through the mosfet, even after I removed the positive connection (no pulldown) and stayed hard on until I either interrupted the battery connection or "tickled" the negative rail with the 50R on the jumper. I was unable to get oscillations here.

Then... I hooked the jumper to the place where the negative FG lead connects. When I "tickled" the positive battery terminal with the 50R, at first nothing happened... then by accident I heard a buzz from my COMPUTER speakers, checked the scope and the system had entered a wild oscillation state, and my inline DMMs freaked out and stopped indicating, and this oscillation continued, scaring me a bit since I couldn't monitor the current, so I killed it by disconnecting the battery.

It turns out that "tickle" is the key word... if I make a hard connection with the 50R to the batt positive, the Q2 either switches cleanly on and stays on or doesn't switch at all. Just that scratchy brief tickle, though, and you are off screaming like the zombies are after you.

Like I said I was worried about destroying my transistors so I only let it go on for a few seconds. I'll repeat it for a video later on this evening... stay tuned.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #66 on: March 28, 2012, 03:49:02 AM »
@MH:

I don't really see how the LEDs could survive in a series connection. Either the oscillations won't be present if I use an appropriate dropping resistor for the 36 volt positive supply, or the LEDs will pop and open the circuit.

But of course I'll try it... I've got plenty of LEDs and just I love the smell of that magic smoke.....

 ;)

ETA: Yup... as I thought... with the LED pair in series with a 1800 ohm resistor, right at the +36 volt terminal... only one LED lights and the oscillations are gone and can't be tuned back, so far. The Q2 mosfets are switching cleanly, all 20mA or so of current.

So now what-- reduce the value of the series resistor until the magic smoke _does_ appear?


ETA2: STOP THE PRESSES !! See the latest TKProduction, Tar Baby and the Semi-Deluxe LEDs of Doom... coming to a YT channel near you as soon as it's done uploading.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #66 on: March 28, 2012, 03:49:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #67 on: March 28, 2012, 04:12:16 AM »
TK:

Didn't you say that your multimeter is showing 200 mA battery draw when the circuit is in oscillation?  To me that sounds like all that you need is two LEDs back-to-back - no series resistor.  200 mA through a vanilla LED won't fry it, correct?  I thought that the typical current through an LED was 100 mA.

If you want to be safe perhaps 2+2 LEDs back-to-back will do it for you.  In theory the LEDs like this are benign, and just stealing 0.7 volts from the battery and otherwise not affecting the circuit.

You can't have any series resistor because that will choke off the whole shebang.

Note that the higher the frequency of the oscillation the lower current consumption of the circuit.  The impedance due to the inductance everywhere increases the higher the frequency.

MileHigh

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5772
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #68 on: March 28, 2012, 04:26:32 AM »
Typical led's are 30ma. 

Mags


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #68 on: March 28, 2012, 04:26:32 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #69 on: March 28, 2012, 04:35:03 AM »
TK:

Didn't you say that your multimeter is showing 200 mA battery draw when the circuit is in oscillation?  To me that sounds like all that you need is two LEDs back-to-back - no series resistor.  200 mA through a vanilla LED won't fry it, correct?  I thought that the typical current through an LED was 100 mA.
um...er... I usually calculate for 20 mA for the standard LED. Some will glow very brightly on quite a bit less.
Quote

If you want to be safe perhaps 2+2 LEDs back-to-back will do it for you.  In theory the LEDs like this are benign, and just stealing 0.7 volts from the battery and otherwise not affecting the circuit.
Each series LED will drop the voltage. Once they turn on they are just like one-directional resistors, and the voltage drop depends on the current you limit by the dropping series resistor. Sure, if there's enough resistance in the rest of the circuit to limit the current to 200 mA at 36 volts, then ten LEDs in series might light brightly. One... would light bery bery brightly for a very short time.
Quote

You can't have any series resistor because that will choke off the whole shebang.

Note that the higher the frequency of the oscillation the lower current consumption of the circuit.  The impedance due to the inductance everywhere increases the higher the frequency.

MileHigh

Ah... yes. OK.... you owe me one green LED. With oscillations indicated, 110 mA showing on the inline meter, I put the green LED in series with no dropping resistor. The current went down to 90 mA indicated and the green LED glowed brilliant orange. It lasted 92 seconds before the light went to dim red ember and the magic white smoke all leaked out.

But the oscillations persisted throughout, until the LED went open totally !!

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #70 on: March 28, 2012, 04:38:29 AM »
TK,

Regarding the alternate bias using the first batt tap (+12v), you will have to either remove Q1 or tie its gate to it's source and Q2's gate will have to be isolated from the rest of the circuit.  I.e., pull Q1 out and then hook up the 12V via 100K or better to the Q2 gate.  The 50R can go across the current FG terminals (between Q2 source and the CSR).  That should give you similar DC bias conditions for Q2, but as I said, at AC things get a bit muddied.

Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc?  I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense.  Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.

What happens to the LED's if you touch them with your fingers while the circuit is oscillating?

Have you looked at the CSR with a scope channel during the osc?  Does it give you any clues as to the actual voltage/current happening there?

PW



 


     

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #70 on: March 28, 2012, 04:38:29 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #71 on: March 28, 2012, 04:41:50 AM »
Tar Baby and the Semi-Deluxe LEDs of Doom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEmNZtt3zZ8

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #72 on: March 28, 2012, 04:45:56 AM »
TK,

Congratulations, your green LED, after 92 seconds of electron loading into its crystal lattice, has finally acheived a Can't OPerate factor (COP) of infinity.

PW


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #73 on: March 28, 2012, 04:47:33 AM »
TK:

Thanks to you and Mags on the reminder about the typical current through a vanilla LED.  It's been a long time for me.  The last time I wired up a vanilla LED like that was probably 30 years ago.  Yikes!

Realistically, a 20 or 30 mA LED may be able to withstand 100 mA.  The trick is to check how hot they are getting with your finger and thumb.

Okay I have a Rev 2 for you.  For starters I meant two LEDs in parallel back-to-back with two LEDs in parallel.  That might still be pushing it so if you have a small breadboard handy, if you did 4 LEDs in parallel back to back with 4 LEDs in parallel you will probably be fine.  No series resistor!

MileHigh

P.S.:  I remember putting 5 volts through a vanilla LED with no series resistor.  It made a cracking sound like a firecracker and split in two after about five seconds.  Not as much fun as over-voltageing a small DC motor hanging by it's wires and hearing it scream and spin itself into a spiral of death.  Screw them people for the ethical treatment of motors.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #74 on: March 28, 2012, 04:57:57 AM »
PW:

Quote
Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc?  I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense.  Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.

You are really good and I am losing my touch/getting lazy.  Would it be due to an effective capacitance associated with the PN junctions?  I think the frequency is in the low megaherttz range but TK will confirm.

MileHigh

P.S.:  TK, just watched the latest clip.  I would think that you are in the MHz range because of both LEDs partially lighting when you shorted them out.  That's a pain in the butt in a way, that very high frequency.  It complicates everything and puts things in "magical Dr. Stiffler" territory.  I was thinking the other day about the sampling rate issues for the DSO and all that, something that Poynt and I touched on last year.  Running at high frequencies like that makes things that much more complicated and certainly way out of the realm of competence of the RAT team.  Now the placement of the wires is that much more critical and so on.  However, it should still not throw off the Rev 2 Deluxe LEDs of Doom test.

 

OneLink