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 1998260 times)

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #555 on: April 22, 2012, 06:15:25 AM »
TK,

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

PW 

 
Yes, that's right. And there is no indication that Rosemary used any other type of resistor than the simple wirewound "cement" power resistors that are shown in the video and are listed in her bill of materials. Therefore, her very low inductance value is likely to be in error, and nowhere in any of her data is it evident that she did anything other than a direct multiplication of the voltage drop across the resistor with the battery voltage.

However, it makes no difference in the SIGN of the current through the resistor, just the magnitude, right? And the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive, isn't it?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #556 on: April 22, 2012, 06:17:07 AM »
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

My dear picowatt

If I ever needed any evidence of 'partiality' it's in this post of yours.  I most certainly HAVE NOT BEEN either unpleasant or unprofessional.  I think the most lenient of accusations would be to say that it is TK who has been excessively combative and entirely unprofessional.  ANd I'm NOT even confining this comment to his work.  And it is HE who has required that I don't engage.  So. PLEASE.  Exercise a modicum of reasonableness in your opinions related to this.  It's GLARINGLY inappropriate.

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #557 on: April 22, 2012, 06:20:46 AM »
Yes, that's right. And there is no indication that Rosemary used any other type of resistor than the simple wirewound "cement" power resistors that are shown in the video and are listed in her bill of materials. Therefore, her very low inductance value is likely to be in error, and nowhere in any of her data is it evident that she did anything other than a direct multiplication of the voltage drop across the resistor with the battery voltage.

However, it makes no difference in the SIGN of the current through the resistor, just the magnitude, right? And the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive, isn't it?

Actually no.  It's still not right.  But perhaps Poynty will enlighten you both.  In due course.  And far be it from me to capitalise on an error.  Unlike you TK I would not charge through 20 pages referring to it ad nauseum in the hopes of thereby denying any competence to any of you.  It's not my style.  And nor do I need to.  Your own lack of it is everywhere apparent.  Fortunately there are those readers here who are well aware of it.

Rosie Pose.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #558 on: April 22, 2012, 06:24:50 AM »

However, it makes no difference in the SIGN of the current through the resistor, just the magnitude, right? And the sign of the power is determined by the sign of the current, since the battery voltage is always positive, isn't it?

And here's another error.  We have examples where the battery indicates a negative voltage.  Go figger!

Again,
Rosie Pose

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #559 on: April 22, 2012, 06:30:14 AM »
OK... so here's a "correction" if indeed it is a correction. Note that the shape of the graph and the sign of the average power does not change, only the magnitude of the power level changes.

Any other problems?

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #560 on: April 22, 2012, 06:30:54 AM »
My dear picowatt

If I ever needed any evidence of 'partiality' it's in this post of yours.  I most certainly HAVE NOT BEEN either unpleasant or unprofessional.  I think the most lenient of accusations would be to say that it is TK who has been excessively combative and entirely unprofessional.  ANd I'm NOT even confining this comment to his work.  And it is HE who has required that I don't engage.  So. PLEASE.  Exercise a modicum of reasonableness in your opinions related to this.  It's GLARINGLY inappropriate.

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I am fully aware of the attitude issues between you and TK.  But even in my discussions with you, simple questions always seemed to invoke an argument or confrontation from you, not a discussion. 

So I will respectfully disagree, I believe it is VERY reasonable to wish you, as well as TK, would "lighten up".

PW

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #561 on: April 22, 2012, 06:32:28 AM »

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."

Not actually.  Here's what we're saying.

'Notwithstanding the measured wattage delivered there appears to be consistent evidence of a negative product.  And a negative 'wattage' makes no sense.  And no matter what we factor in for impedance  -  that negative wattage persists.  So. Can you EXPERTS please explain this.  Because that's why we're writing this paper.'

Rosie Posie

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #562 on: April 22, 2012, 06:34:05 AM »
And here's another error.  We have examples where the battery indicates a negative voltage.  Go figger!

Again,
Rosie Pose

Prove it.
Not in any of the scopeshots in your "papers" is a negative battery voltage shown during even the highest oscillations.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #563 on: April 22, 2012, 06:35:42 AM »
Rosemary,

I am fully aware of the attitude issues between you and TK.  But even in my discussions with you, simple questions always seemed to invoke an argument or confrontation from you, not a discussion. 

So I will respectfully disagree, I believe it is VERY reasonable to wish you, as well as TK, would "lighten up".

PW

picowatt - with respect - there has been nothing that you have posted to me that has not been addressed respectfully.  If you can show me any evidence to the contrary then I'll attend to it.

So.  When you include my attitude with that of TK's again you're wrong.  I do NOT resort to malicious invective nor traducement.  And my comments are NOT slanderous. 

Rosemary

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #564 on: April 22, 2012, 06:36:55 AM »
TK,

You are indeed fast.  I wish we had a part number for Rosemary's CSR resistors so that their inductance could be confirmed.

When you measured your CSR's inductance, did you measure them as paralleled or individually and then calculate their value?

In all the video blowups, has anyone seen a manufacturer logo on Rosemary's CSR's?

You don't need such high wattage for the CSR, I'll bet you could live with 4 to 8 half-watt carbons paralleled.

PW

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #565 on: April 22, 2012, 06:38:00 AM »
Prove it.
Not in any of the scopeshots in your "papers" is a negative battery voltage shown during even the highest oscillations.

There is ample proof in our final test.  Take a look

Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #566 on: April 22, 2012, 06:39:57 AM »
OK... so here's a "correction" if indeed it is a correction. Note that the shape of the graph and the sign of the average power does not change, only the magnitude of the power level changes.

Any other problems?

LOL.  I'd say it does change.  Golly.  By a HUGE factor.

Rosie Posie
 :-*

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #567 on: April 22, 2012, 06:40:54 AM »
Extra special non-inductive shunt resistors, wired so as to minimize overall inductance?


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #568 on: April 22, 2012, 06:43:57 AM »
Extra special non-inductive shunt resistors, wired so as to minimize overall inductance?

I have NEVER claimed to have non-inductive resistors.  Why would I bother?  We're not talking marginal values.  There's nothing that can't manage a generous error margin and STILL show the required evidence. 

Rosie Posie
 8) added a required signature

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #569 on: April 22, 2012, 06:48:46 AM »
TK,

You are indeed fast.  I wish we had a part number for Rosemary's CSR resistors so that their inductance could be confirmed.
You can see them in the photo I just posted, and I  know you have dozens just like them on your bench. And you can see how they are listed in the bill of materials. Would you not have  mentioned the fact that you used special noninductive resistors?
Quote
When you measured your CSR's inductance, did you measure them as paralleled or individually and then calculate their value?
Both. I thought I showed this in a video. I measured some known commercial inductors to establish the accuracy of my inductance meter and its lead inductances, and then I measured one out-of-circuit resistor, then I measured the stack in-circuit. The in-circuit measurement was under 2 microHenry and the calculated value based on the 7 microHenry individual resistor was 1.75 microHenry. I even showed the meter readings along a stack of series-wired 1 microHenry inductors to verify its accuracy at the bottom end. It's all in the video.
Quote

In all the video blowups, has anyone seen a manufacturer logo on Rosemary's CSR's?
No, they just appear to have the standard " 10W   1 U  J " marking, where the U is actually an omega, in a single line. Mine are marked "XICON W" on a second line of text.

Quote

You don't need such high wattage for the CSR, I'll bet you could live with 4 to 8 half-watt carbons paralleled.

PW
Yes, you could.