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 1998243 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #525 on: April 21, 2012, 09:03:23 PM »
I did the average of what you had selected for all data points.

Average power = -110.56W

This is over 4 complete cycles. Usually, its good to do at least 10 cycles, but I think we see a trend here. ;)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #526 on: April 21, 2012, 10:50:49 PM »
You know that the rationalization and justification and name calling and aspersion-casting against me, my methodology, and my equipment is all about to begin, don't you?

That's one reason why I drew the process out in such detail. I don't think there is any room in what I've shown for mysterious manipulations or faked data. I've given enough excruciating detail at every stage of the process that even an intelligent eighth-grader (who paid attention in math class) could reproduce it for herself, given a good oscilloscope and a handful of magic mosfets.


Speaking of which..... there are the IRF830s yet to try. Any bets as to the "OU" outcome using those much less magic mosfets?

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #527 on: April 21, 2012, 11:36:17 PM »
Ah, I thought you were using the 830's.  :)

Well with the 830's, I suspect all will be very similar, except your Fo will go up between 2x to 4x.

Re. Rosemary, I think she's busy getting her tests together. Don't be surprised if you see a continuous oscillation version with a floating VGS bias.  ;)

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #528 on: April 22, 2012, 03:02:35 AM »
Quantitative scoposcopy and Tar Baby's Bias Current

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk

Ahhh the current flows the opposite direction of what I thought it would flow alike...


Okay, I see, the DC current flow through the 10.3 Ohm resistor is from the main battery through Q2 back to the main battery ground.....
I thought this current would come from the 9 Volts battery, but this is not the case...!

Then just try to put a 100 nF cap in series, so it blocks the DC current and will only pass the AC.
ripple.
The 9 Volts battery should then not be discharged so fast...

Will it then still oscillate ?

The other new postings I have to catch up next week.

Regards; Stefan.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #529 on: April 22, 2012, 03:21:19 AM »
Ah, I thought you were using the 830's.  :)

Well with the 830's, I suspect all will be very similar, except your Fo will go up between 2x to 4x.

Re. Rosemary, I think she's busy getting her tests together. Don't be surprised if you see a continuous oscillation version with a floating VGS bias.  ;)

No... what would have been the point of that? Another "surprise"? I haven't used the 830as since that video. I want it to be impossible for anyone to deny that Tar Baby  is similar to NERD in all significant respects. I am even prepared to mount it on a piece of white pegboard if necessary. I draw the line at the clipleads to connect the mosfets, though.

Actually that _would_ surprise me very much. I still don't think she'll be showing any tests. Remember her conditions? She has to get two "academics" to agree to referee, and she won't be accepting anyone who hasn't read and in some sense agreed with her "papers". Do you know anyone with the requisite electronics knowledge who might fit into those categories? If they disagree with her they are incompetent idiots. We've seen that response from her how many times now?
In other words, not until a blue moon falls on the twelfth of Never will we see real tests from the poser.

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #530 on: April 22, 2012, 03:34:12 AM »
TK,

Is your circuit "similar" or does it just "relate" to it?


PW

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #531 on: April 22, 2012, 03:35:30 AM »
Ahhh the current flows the opposite direction of what I thought it would flow alike...


Okay, I see, the DC current flow through the 10.3 Ohm resistor is from the main battery through Q2 back to the main battery ground.....
I thought this current would come from the 9 Volts battery, but this is not the case...!

Then just try to put a 100 nF cap in series, so it blocks the DC current and will only pass the AC.
ripple.
The 9 Volts battery should then not be discharged so fast...

Will it then still oscillate ?

The other new postings I have to catch up next week.

Regards; Stefan.

I think I  must still not be understanding you.

The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_  and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense. 
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.

So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.

So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #532 on: April 22, 2012, 03:38:42 AM »
TK,

Is your circuit "similar" or does it just "relate" to it?


PW
That's right, and I'm not claiming similarity, I'm just claiming to have _measured_ similarity.

 8)


(By the way I've made a new video and I think it shows the scope traces you wanted to see. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMthOsvbVU

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #533 on: April 22, 2012, 03:41:45 AM »
I think I  must still not be understanding you.

The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_  and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense. 
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.

So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.

So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.

TK,

I believe Stefan is thinking that by placing a cap in series with the 9volt bias source, the 9volt battery will not have to provide a DC current and therefore not discharge.

I believe the correct answer to his question is, "no".  The source leg of Q2 needs both a negative voltage AND a DC path back to the battery negative (or the CSR).

PW

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #534 on: April 22, 2012, 03:48:45 AM »
A data point:


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #535 on: April 22, 2012, 04:02:06 AM »
Are you finished now TK?  Or are you still doing that battery discharge number?

Let me know when I'm allowed to comment.  Or do you prefer it that we leave this 'gossip' untrammeled by the input of some real science?

Rosie Pose

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #536 on: April 22, 2012, 04:45:44 AM »
TK,

Even if you figure in the < 1.5 watts from the Ibias source, you're still looking good.

Thanks for the video.  I forgot about how your load is arranged making it difficult to probe right at the load.  It looks like your dropping about 25VAC across the load, correct?  It also appears that the phase is shifted about 90 to 100 degrees between the traces.  Do you agree?  Is this a reliable phase measurement or a possible triggering artifact? (it looked well triggered to me).   

I wonder what would happen to the energy calculations (and the oscillation) if you were to place a cap suitable for high frequency across the battery connections at your board so that only DC is indicated at the battery terminals.

It looks like your Ibias and Ibattery ammeters are in much closer agreement than before.

Have you managed to get anything else done?  Did the pups get their shots today?

PW

 

 





   

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #537 on: April 22, 2012, 04:55:12 AM »
I did the average of what you had selected for all data points.

Average power = -110.56W

This is over 4 complete cycles. Usually, its good to do at least 10 cycles, but I think we see a trend here. ;)
I didn't get quite that much. Perhaps we measured differently or I made an error somewhere, since the first two cycle means agree with yours, but my overall mean is a bit lower. Still solidly negative though.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #538 on: April 22, 2012, 04:58:50 AM »
Are you finished now TK?  Or are you still doing that battery discharge number?

Let me know when I'm allowed to comment.  Or do you prefer it that we leave this 'gossip' untrammeled by the input of some real science?

Rosie Pose

You betray your attitude problem in two simple sentences. You cannot post here without insulting or denigrating something or somebody, and you have no possibility of understanding what's presented here, so you will deny its reality and its validity.

You have nothing of value to contribute here UNLESS and UNTIL you show your own testing.

And no, I am far from finished. In fact, I am just beginning.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #539 on: April 22, 2012, 05:15:18 AM »
TK,

Even if you figure in the < 1.5 watts from the Ibias source, you're still looking good.

Thanks for the video.  I forgot about how your load is arranged making it difficult to probe right at the load.  It looks like your dropping about 25VAC across the load, correct?  It also appears that the phase is shifted about 90 to 100 degrees between the traces.  Do you agree?  Is this a reliable phase measurement or a possible triggering artifact? (it looked well triggered to me).   

No, I don't see that phase shift _now_. I see a tiny one of just a few degrees that might be artefact. I realize now that in the video I was triggering on the wrong channel and so I think that shift in the video is artefact. (I can't imagine a physical reason for it, the load is only 74 microHenry.)
It's running behind me right now, triggering on the proper channel and showing only a teenytiny phase shift, and I can't reproduce that shift shown in the video. Now watch youknowwho take that ball and run with it. Since there's no possibility of applying an external trigger in this case I can't prove phase accuracy except by comparisons.
Quote

I wonder what would happen to the energy calculations (and the oscillation) if you were to place a cap suitable for high frequency across the battery connections at your board so that only DC is indicated at the battery terminals.
Probably the same thing that happened in .99's simulation. The illusory oscillations on the battery voltage would go away. But the sign of the power is still determined by the sign of the current, isn't it?
Quote

It looks like your Ibias and Ibattery ammeters are in much closer agreement than before.
Yes, and I still don't fully understand this detail. It's more than coincidence but I don't see how the same current could be flowing in both places. There must be some key element I'm not getting.
Quote

Have you managed to get anything else done?  Did the pups get their shots today?

PW
Yep, dogs vaccinated, Murphy has no microchip so he's now officially our dog and not somebody's lost companion, heartworm test negative, started on preventative, everybody survived (but a Rottweiler bit a little rat dog at the vet clinic and there was chaos for 5 minutes).
 8)