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 1997956 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3345 on: June 29, 2012, 07:26:19 AM »
My dear Magsy,

Ooops, I have missed a post also. Ill read you Pico list response in the morning. Didnt get to sleep til 330 last night and its 117 now.

Rose, I dont know what to say really. I havnt even read the Pico reply yet, but I have a feeling that your responses will be, well, we will see.

It seems that you've got a rather heavy reliance on any answer other than your own?  But I suppose that's the unhappy lot of those of us who cannot formulate our own opinion.  There's always the need to borrow the mind set of anything on offer.  Sadly.

Possibly it's because you're in need of sleep.  But I see no real difference between your posts from the start to the finish of any day.  Just a certain vacillation as to your preferred support.  As mentioned - it's another side effect of those of us who simply cannot think for ourselves.  I fully understand.

Enjoy your sleep there Magsy.  Not sure if you're ever fully awake though.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3346 on: June 29, 2012, 10:02:36 AM »
I see what looks like another slug slime trail left again, some creatures cant read but just slide around as if on a ice skating rink ..... so we'll make color highlighted images to help the handicapped and mentally impared

Golly I missed these points.  Sorry.  I must have been speed reading...

"No.  No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING.  Golly.  Whatever next?  Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors.  And that applies to them all.  "
Not sure where your quote starts and where his quote stops.  Either way - here's the thing. A MOSFET is designed to conduct current from an applied switch - or as Poynty puts it - from an applied 'polarity'.  They are NOT designed to avalanche.  That's very much a secondary attribute that is a consequence of their primary function.

You clearly dont read the data sheets.
Not actually.  It's all I ever do on those downloads of ours.  Over and over.  To exhaustion.  I am TRULY skilled in power analysis after all these years.  Believe it or not.  Not an EXPERT.  But certainly competent.  And considerably more so than our little TK.  Self evidently.

So just that one detail about the "Avalanching", we can see you are arguing something you clearly dont have any idea about.
Not actually.  I'm inclined to suspect that you and TK et al - have DELIBERATELY confused the sense of my post.

But if you had read the data sheet, you would. That is, even if the "Avalanching" were a criteria that you were interested in in the first place, even just along the way, then I would not be posting these words at this moment. But I am.
I see now that your reference to 'data sheet' is to the specifications of the MOSFET.  I stand my my earlier statement.  This is not and never has been the object of a transistor.  Or that's certainly as I understand it.  And IF I'm wrong on this point - which is very likely - then it most certainly is NOT the object of our application of this.

Even though I did repost some of what you requested, after saying that I wouldnt, I have a feeling that your response will be nill on the subject. Where as TK's fireworks are on topic, as you should know if you had followed thoroughly.  But it appears you are not.
Not actually.  The 'fireworks' that you think are 'relevant' will NEVER induce energy efficiency to an application.  Our ENTIRE focus is energy efficiency.

There you go Magsy.  I think I've covered all those 'HOLES'.  Unless you know of some more. 

Rosie Pose

The referenced links "IN DISPUTE" on mosfet avalanche were ....
poynt99    http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311751/#msg311751     Reply #54 on: February 05, 2012, 06:03:52 PM
Rosemary Ainslie   http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311761/#msg311761     Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 11:36:41 PM

And for the gross toothless super troll slime crawler that only knows how to bloviate and has no proof of any claim(s) other than being a idiot .... please see the attached images Rosemary for your personal reference the "DISPUTED" postings and the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET data sheet and what the manufacture states about it's avalanche rating.   ::)

Rosemary you've used the same International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET for over ten (10) years .... who would have thought .... some expert you are  :P

FTC
 ???

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3347 on: June 29, 2012, 10:54:50 AM »
My dear FTC

Thanks for that.  I take it you're referring to Magsy and TK.  I'm sure Magsy will be able to advantage himself from your dilligence.  Nice to see my posts repeated.  Hopefully he'll read them.

Rosie Pose


WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3349 on: June 29, 2012, 12:18:15 PM »
My dear FTC

Thanks for that.  I take it you're referring to Magsy and TK.  I'm sure Magsy will be able to advantage himself from your dilligence.  Nice to see my posts repeated.  Hopefully he'll read them.

Rosie Pose

No need to thank me, I'm glad you finally see yourself Rosemary for what you are, spreading that slime trail of yours everywhere you go, my postings I'm referring to as noted about you Rosemary and your continued ignorance.  :o

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg327294/#msg327294  ( @ TK about you Rosemary )
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/msg327406/#msg327406  ( @ Rosemary [aka super troll] )

You never looked at the images as always .... so I'll post them again just for you. As I said time and time again "you call your self a expert" and don't even read the component (mosfet) data sheets or know what they say ?  :P



Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3350 on: June 29, 2012, 01:09:42 PM »
You never looked at the images as always .... so I'll post them again just for you. As I said time and time again "you call your self a expert" and don't even read the component (mosfet) data sheets or know what they say ?

No I'm no expert. LOL. But unlike you I'm really good at doing power analysis off those data dumps.  That's all that spread sheet analysis Fuzzy.  Remember?  Those sums that you couldn't do at all.  And you left it to me and some others to do.  In the same way you couldn't put a paper together.  Not even close.  Which is why it's so EXTRAORDINARY - that you CLAIM under OATH to Scribd that our paper is YOUR EXCLUSIVE WORK.  I'm not sure that's the 'real' truth as MileHigh puts it.  And I believe that this perjury of yours may yet come back to bite you.  But the good news is this.  At least you can't DENY the advantages that we all measured there.  Not unless you withdraw that paper.

Rosie Pose.

BTW - Sorry to see you're not treating us to more of those malapropisms. They're fun.  Don't hold back.






Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3351 on: June 29, 2012, 01:15:09 PM »
I see what looks like another slug slime trail left again, some creatures cant read but just slide around as if on a ice skating rink ..... so we'll make color highlighted images to help the handicapped and mentally impared

And for those readers who may not be fully aware of who Fuzzy is - he's that gross vulgarian troll who THANKFULLY is somewhat dyslexic.  Without this failing God alone knows what disgusting reaches he'd manage in his rather disasterous analogies.  We can all be grateful for small mercies.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And this is the paper that he stole.  Heavily contested ownership.  One of those authors first claimed that it was EXCLUSIVELY his work.  Then Fuzzy claimed it as his.  The 'real truth' is that they're neither of them the owners of that paper.  Sadly Scribd believe Fuzzy because he perjured himself and claimed to be the SOLE AUTHOR. If you can believe that.  He can barely manage to string a sentence together.  And Scribed have forbidden me any rights to  publish a paper the bulk of which is ENTIRELY my own work.  It still rankles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Again,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3352 on: June 29, 2012, 01:16:28 PM »
Wilby - thanks for that paper on avalanche characteristics of MOSFET's.  Clearly I needed it.  I suspect there are others who may also possibly benefit from a read there.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3353 on: June 29, 2012, 02:00:08 PM »
Guys - these claims are laughable...
What about these significant results that the trolls have sought to bury

Tar Baby runs on CAPACITORS ONLY, making a NEGATIVE MEAN POWER PRODUCT, with oscillations that DO NOT VISIBLY DECAY FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD before they collapse just like those from a battery supply would, if you only had the attention span needed to determine it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Awd8_Xro0
In this video we have the systematic collapse of the oscillation over a marginally extended period.  But TK is ENTIRELY unable to sustain that oscillation without the batteries.  That's per our claim.
 
 And equally absurd is this...
Function Generators DO IN FACT pass current from an external battery source, through the ground and probe tip leads, to an external load in a complete circuit, with both the battery and the FG acting in series as power sources, with the resultant output voltage being the algebraic sum of the two voltages at any instant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc
where he seems FASCINATED by the fact that he can light an LED when he supplements current output from a function generator with a battery supply.  God ALONE knows what he's trying to INFER - IMPLY - INSINUATE.  I think the idea is to pretend that the signal from a function generator actually moves as a current flow - directly onto our switched circuit.  It doesn't.  The only thing the signal manages is an applied voltage to the gate of those FET's.  This, in turn, induces a current flow. 

Go ahead now, spin and dig, you tiny army of petty-minded trolls. Bring in another truckload or two of insignificant, off topic bloviation in an attempt to rebury without discussion these two HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT video demonstrations, both of which refute various Ainslie claims as simply as making oxtail soup.
Frankly we'd all be better off if we could just concentrate on oxtail soup.  At least that's got nutritional benefit.

Anyway.  I thought I'd do him a kindness by referencing his videos.  They're starved of an audience.  This may answer his vanity.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3354 on: June 29, 2012, 02:24:05 PM »
And for those readers who may not be fully aware of who Fuzzy is - he's that gross vulgarian troll who THANKFULLY is somewhat dyslexic.  Without this failing God alone knows what disgusting reaches he'd manage in his rather disasterous analogies.  We can all be grateful for small mercies.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And this is the paper that he stole.  Heavily contested ownership.  One of those authors first claimed that it was EXCLUSIVELY his work.  Then Fuzzy claimed it as his.  The 'real truth' is that they're neither of them the owners of that paper.  Sadly Scribd believe Fuzzy because he perjured himself and claimed to be the SOLE AUTHOR. If you can believe that.  He can barely manage to string a sentence together.  And Scribed have forbidden me any rights to  publish a paper the bulk of which is ENTIRELY my own work.  It still rankles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Again,
Rosemary

Your such a slimy liar Rosemary without facts to prove anything you say except libel and slander shown in your posts.

I don't hide a thing unlike you .... https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=6B7817C40BB20460!528   ( Legal File )

You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3355 on: June 29, 2012, 02:34:39 PM »

You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Not actually.  I both can and have. 

Rosie Pose

picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3356 on: June 29, 2012, 03:08:15 PM »
Dear readers,

I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.

She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly.  Now she wants some method to test this.  An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy.  Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly. 

In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on.  The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on.  Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic.  There can be no other explanation.  This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.   

Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in)  is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly.  I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.

From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.

She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on.  Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.

In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR.  The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR.  This is as plain as day for all to see.  Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2,  She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal.  The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR").  All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR. 

When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7).  Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate.  There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.

When the Fg output is a negative voltage,  the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off.  Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).  When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) .  However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG.  This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG.  Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it.  Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation.  Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements).  As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen.  As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases.  The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias.  (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why.  And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)

But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed.  She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense.  The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage.  The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth.  Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.

I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected.  Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".

It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).

These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".

PW

     




Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3357 on: June 29, 2012, 03:31:36 PM »
Not actually.  I both can and have. 

Rosie Pose

There are 2 of you?  And you make fun of my posts. 

Mags

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3358 on: June 29, 2012, 03:54:50 PM »
Magsy?

This was in answer to Glen.
You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
Not actually.  I both can and have.

There are 2 of you?  And you make fun of my posts.

But in point of fact - I find it very amusing to see the extent to which everyone applies liberal and rather unrestrained criticism of me and of our work - and then they seem to take umbrage when I'm NOT offended.  At best - I'm amused.  And NO - there's only 1 of me - I think!  I hope so anyway.

Regards
Rosie

added

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #3359 on: June 29, 2012, 03:59:31 PM »
picowatt

I started reading your post and just got disheartened at its length and obscurity.  Forgive me - if you're depending on my reading it I, unfortunately, just don't have the appetite. I have a very short attention span and absolutely no interest in your opinions.  Unless it was not intended for my readership.  In which case all is dandy.

Rosie Posie