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 1998531 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #540 on: April 22, 2012, 05:16:21 AM »
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.
If this is intended as a measure of the wattage delivered - then you need to recalculate this as it's based on the resistance of your current sensing resistor which you keep referring to as a CVR

That's just for starters.  Which shows us all that you have no CLUE.  With the utmost respect.

I have a whole lot of comments on those videos of yours.  All of them. All of them grossly flawed.  But I see how you'll need to hold the floor for a little longer.  Feel free.  It's amusing to watch this nonsense.

Again and ever,
rosie

Rosie Pose

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #541 on: April 22, 2012, 05:17:26 AM »
Another data point:


TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #542 on: April 22, 2012, 05:24:48 AM »
If this is intended as a measure of the wattage delivered - then you need to recalculate this as it's based on the resistance of your current sensing resistor which you keep referring to as a CVR

That's just for starters.  Which shows us all that you have no CLUE.  With the utmost respect.

You are a liar. You have no respect for anything or anyone going on in this thread. And it is you who "have no clue". Now... stop with your insults and distractions and GO DO YOUR OWN TESTS. If you can find any  "academics" to referee it, that is.
Quote

I have a whole lot of comments on those videos of yours.  All of them. All of them grossly flawed.  But I see how you'll need to hold the floor for a little longer.  Feel free.  It's amusing to watch this nonsense.

Again and ever,
rosie

Rosie Pose

I'll put my "nonsense" up against yours FOR INDEPENDENT EVALUATION any time you are READY, Rosie Poser. You are ignorant of your topic and you choose to remain so, and for some reason you desire to flaunt that ignorance at every opportunity. Where are your supporters? Where is a SINGLE PERSON who still agrees with you? Where is a SINGLE PERSON who is qualified in electronics that will say that my work here is invalid?

Now go away UNTIL YOU HAVE TESTS OF YOUR OWN TO REPORT.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #543 on: April 22, 2012, 05:29:03 AM »


WHY are you reposting that link.  I've seen it.  It's WRONG.  Your calculation of the amperage is WRONG.  No other way to put it.  I thought you were posing as the EXPERT?

Rosie Pose

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #544 on: April 22, 2012, 05:32:48 AM »

WHY are you reposting that link.  I've seen it.  It's WRONG.  Your calculation of the amperage is WRONG.  No other way to put it.  I thought you were posing as the EXPERT?

Rosie Pose
Reposting what link? The one to your 25.6 million Joule calculation? The one to all the wrong things and lies you've made in the past three weeks?


How is my calculation wrong, Rosie Poser? Please enlighten us and SHOW YOUR WORK.

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #545 on: April 22, 2012, 05:35:46 AM »
TK,

I was thinking that was quite a bit of phase shift.  But, that is why one should always confirm measurements. 

Regarding the Ibatt versus Ibias, unless your DC ammeters are responding to the AC component, which some DC ammeters might might do with clipped or assymetrical AC waveforms, the DC currents should be the same.

The only DC path for Rload is by way of Q2's source and the bias supply/resistor (other than a very small gate leakage current).  At DC, the current should be the same measured anywhere in "the loop", unless there is a DC "sneak" path unaccounted for.

Have you ever attempted placing a cap across your Vbatt connections?

How do your dogs handle trips to the vet?

By the way, you sometimes do indeed provide a good chuckle...

PW

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #546 on: April 22, 2012, 05:36:32 AM »
Reposting what link? The one to your 25.6 million Joule calculation? The one to all the wrong things and lies you've made in the past three weeks?


How is my calculation wrong, Rosie Poser? Please enlighten us and SHOW YOUR WORK.

Do your own homework TK.  If you can't work it out one assumes picowatt would.  What's wrong with you all?  There's error after error after error and NOT ONE OF YOU ever notices.

Rosie

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #547 on: April 22, 2012, 05:47:17 AM »
@PW: They had fun. It's always an exciting outing and they usually get treats.


Apparently Rosemary doesn't yet understand how to measure current using a Current Viewing Resistor and an oscilloscope, even though I have posted the video showing exactly how to do it and comparing the reading with the Ohm's Law theoretical value as well as with two other meters.
Yet she refuses to say just exactly what's wrong with the method.

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

The voltage drop across a current viewing resistor, Rosie Poser, is related to the current flowing through that resistor by Ohm's Law. I = V / R. So if you have a voltage across the resistor of 0.5 volts, and your resistor is 0.25 Ohms.... the current is I = 0.5 / 0.25 = 2.0 Amps. If you have a value of -2 volts, as you do in your scopeshot below, the current is -8 amps. That's the way it is, that's the way I calculated and once again you are wrong and easily refuted.




picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #548 on: April 22, 2012, 05:48:54 AM »
TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #549 on: April 22, 2012, 05:49:22 AM »
Do your own homework TK.  If you can't work it out one assumes picowatt would.  What's wrong with you all?  There's error after error after error and NOT ONE OF YOU ever notices.

Rosie

Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.

So enlighten us. Step by step. You  know I'd do it for you.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #550 on: April 22, 2012, 05:52:12 AM »
TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW
And this is significant how?

And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?

Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #551 on: April 22, 2012, 05:56:56 AM »
Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.

So enlighten us. Step by step. You  know I'd do it for you.

OK.  So.  You now want me to engage?  Is that it?  No TK.  I'll keep my counsel for now.  You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions.  Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts?  I'm saving them up for when I get the floor.  Can't be much longer now.

Rosie Pose

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #552 on: April 22, 2012, 06:02:32 AM »
And this is significant how?

And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?

Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.

TK,

If your shunt is truly 1.75uH, it would be closer to 16 ohms at 1.5MHz.

PW 

 

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #553 on: April 22, 2012, 06:06:17 AM »
OK.  So.  You now want me to engage?  Is that it?  No TK.  I'll keep my counsel for now.  You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions.  Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts?  I'm saving them up for when I get the floor.  Can't be much longer now.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

I for one wish you would "lighten up".  It seems you never "discuss", you always just want to "argue".

It's not very pleasant nor professional.

PW




TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #554 on: April 22, 2012, 06:06:43 AM »
TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW

The only place in the "papers" where the CVR inductance is mentioned -- except for its implausibly low value in the table of materials -- is this passage from Paper 1:

Quote
Also to be noted is that there is a measure of inductance on
the current-sensing resistor that begs some margin for error in
the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the
transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can
be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits
from the inductances that are measured over the circuit
components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive
and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the
indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily
established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical
amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into
the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the
oscillation, in the first instance. The potential for the circuit to
be used in a booster converter mode also begs the requirement
for more robust transistors than is available in the market.
There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely
quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to
the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element.
This was based on the fact that in all tests and,
notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset
adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from
the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in
temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as
being anomalous.

Note that last part especially. Here's the translation: "We didn't do the critical measurement to see if our conclusion is right because we know our conclusion is right so we don't have to."