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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

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 Posts: 897345
  • *Total Topics: 15814
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 18
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1614376 times)

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4740 on: September 01, 2012, 03:16:51 PM »
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality.  You put words in people's mouths.  You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone.  Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that.  At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"
My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted."


I bet that's the first time in your life that anyone in the entire world has ever heard the word "apology" come from your mouth.


Have fun with yourselves.  I'm going surfing.  The sun is shining and the waves are breaking nicely.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4740 on: September 01, 2012, 03:16:51 PM »

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4741 on: September 01, 2012, 03:46:15 PM »
@gm

The response to discussion of the 555 was couched in appropriate terms. If you feel the sentence was misleading WRT your opinion, you can say so, and I believe you'll see that point accepted, explicitly clarified, and I dare say apologised for if it's something you're particularly sensitive about.

So far you've been treated with nothing but courtesy; it's difficult to see what prompts your grawlix.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4742 on: September 01, 2012, 06:49:20 PM »
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality.  You put words in people's mouths.  You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone.  Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that.

Have fun with yourselves.  I'm going surfing.  The sun is shining and the waves are breaking nicely.

This is what you said GM ....

 "My PWM and UCC27322 driver chip takes about 1/4 (or so) the power of the 555 circuit anyway.  Who would want to use the 555? "

Ok,maybe 'useless' was not the best interpretation.

Your evaluation of the 555 being inefficient is simply not true. ;] But you are inferring that others should use something else instead, when in reality, the cmos 555's can be configured to produce a very high quality PWM circuit, with a ton of ways to customize, and can work very efficiently, contrary to your beliefs.

Dont play the Rose card and be stubborn to things you can learn from others. From what we can see, you are many levels above Rose technically. =]  As of late, I see that most people are above her level. It can be detected in most all of her posts. You will see this sooner or later. All you have to do is open your eyes. ;]

Surfing?  East coast (GMeast)? My brother lives in Vero.  Im in Ft laud.  I can tell ya, Yes the sun is shining.  I cant take the heat like I used to. Or maybe Ive never been in this kind of heat. ;]

There were probably good waves earlier this week from Issac.

MaGs

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4742 on: September 01, 2012, 06:49:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4743 on: September 01, 2012, 08:29:39 PM »
You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality.  You put words in people's mouths.  You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone.  Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that.  At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"
My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted."


I bet that's the first time in your life that anyone in the entire world has ever heard the word "apology" come from your mouth.


Have fun with yourselves.  I'm going surfing.  The sun is shining and the waves are breaking nicely.

Well.... there you have it. Insults and disparagement from the holier-than-thou gmeast. Who isn't doing an "exact replication" or even a replication at all... .he's doing something completely different.

He actually has the temerity to criticise ME for CORRECTING MY MISTAKE.... but he conveniently ignores EVERY INSTANCE OF AINSLIE'S UNCORRECTED ERRORS, LIES AND MISREPRESENTATONS.... and to top it off, he actually refers to one of her lies as support for what he's doing: the schematic in the 2009 document.

Hey...gmeast..... you really should be doing your homework. Here's a suggestion: Find out just why that diode suddenly appeared in Ainslie's schematics. Find out who first used a diode there.

And no, you lying idiot GMEAST: I've issued apologies before, in the rare instances when I am shown to be wrong due to a mistake I've made. But.... look back and tell me please, just how long it took before Ainslie acknowledged and apologised for..... AND CORRECTED...... her 555 timer circuit published in 2002. How long did it take for her to acknowledge AND CORRECT the schematics given for the present 5-mosfet circuit? How about her wonderfully creative math? Examples.... uncorrected and unapologised for and misleading examples.... of Ainslie's ridiculous math abound. Not only does she not correct them and revise the conclusions based on them, she CANNOT correct them because she doesn't even grasp the simplest concepts of algebra... or intellectual honesty.

Why does GMEAST dodge the actual questions about his own fiddling: How was the power figure obtained, showing the working and the measurements? What is the actual frequency of the oscillations, and why does the scope give the wrong value? Why do the oscillations not persist as Ainslie claimed they did in her circuit?  Why is he NOT using the timer and components specified? Because they DON'T WORK? Where is Ainslie's correction, retraction and apology for perpetrating this FRAUD -- the Quantum circuit -- on her readers? And even on Gmeast himself, who had to waste his time building a KNOWN INCORRECT circuit to find out for himself, because AINSLIE CONCEALED INFORMATION, even from him......

Can you imagine the furor if it had been ME, publishing that diagram and insisting that it was correct and concealing information that others had found it not to be correct?

But who cares, after all. Gmeast is NOT replicating anything Ainslie has ever done. He's using part of a schematic that she "published" as a lying attempt to make some people believe that she had a circuit that worked, instead of what was ACTUALLY PUBLISHED IN THE ONLY REAL PUBLICATION. And he's using some other components that Ainslie never used nor even heard of: gate drivers and capacitors and etc.

His "work" is irrelevant and his attitude sucks. All he's got is a great pair of blinders, so he doesn't have to look at the huge Polly Parrot and all of her UNCORRECTED and UNAPOLOGISED FOR mistakes, errors, and outright lies.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4744 on: September 01, 2012, 08:37:50 PM »
He seemed to come with his mind made up about the reception he would receive and then acted as if he'd actually received it, as opposed to a handful of polite questions and observations, and on-topic technical questions.


Sadly mistaken if he thinks this reflects badly on anyone  but himself.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4744 on: September 01, 2012, 08:37:50 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4745 on: September 01, 2012, 08:45:15 PM »

You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality.  You put words in people's mouths.  You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone.  Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that.  At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"


Wow Greg !   ???

Personally I've never ran with any pack, I do question opportunist with banners of dubitable intentions. If you can't manage a TRUE scientific "REPLICATION" of a device, that's not mine or anyone else's problem but the experimentalist doing the work. I must emphasize that the "CORRECT" terminology should be used to be more explicit in all meanings so there is no confusion on anyones part.

I'm glad to "FINALLY" see that Rosemary has hired a professional "article" writer / composer whom advertises in the new forum you seem to be so fond of, maybe he can help you all "OVER THERE"::)


FTC
 ;)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4746 on: September 01, 2012, 10:03:40 PM »
@ Greg ( gmeast )

If your having trouble with the "Quantum 2002" circuit there is a available option but everyone else known hasn't had any luck. Now that your under Rosemary's wing maybe she'll release what is claimed to be as indicated in her possession ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html      07-13-2009, 07:52 AM
Quote
Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.  :o

Rosemary's quote is quite specific that she has a "Quantum 2002" device that has a claimed COP>17 efficiency of operation ( using a flyback diode ? ) ..... she is withholding 100% all the required information to replicate the device or she's a liar and doesn't have said device with any COP>17 not even a COP<1 .  ::)

Of course .... you are a member also at "Energetic Forum" so you should already know the history there on this I assume.  ;)


FTC
 :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4746 on: September 01, 2012, 10:03:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4747 on: September 01, 2012, 11:23:09 PM »
There is a lot more prevarication and mendacity from Ainslie in that post.

I ask you all to consider this. Take a random 555 timer circuit and some "mistaken" timing caps and resistors. Assemble it and test the frequency range and duty cycle.

Does your random circuit make the EXACT INVERSE of the duty cycle claimed to have been used in the Quantum paper? Of course not. Perhaps Ainslie and her sycophants do not realize that the caps and resistors of a 555 timer circuit are CALCULATED based on desired performance parameters. A simple "error" would NOT result in an exact inverted cycle.... these values were deliberately calculated to result in the duty cycle attained: one which would make the mosfet DRAIN voltage be HIGH only 3.7 percent of the time. In other words, a fundamental conceptual error guided the design of the 555 timer switch and carried all through the subsequent work of Ainslie and her sycophants. Even in some discussions of the present, 5 mosfet circuit she makes the same error.... which is why there are no Drain voltage traces shown in most of Ainslie's current claims. She cannot understand why the Drain voltage is LOW when the circuit's load is receiving power and goes back to battery voltage when the mosfet gate signal is LOW.

The story about the 555 timer circuit that she told in that quoted post is a complete lie. She used the circuit that is given in the Quantum article, it makes the exact inverted duty cycle, and it gives a 3.7 percent HI voltage at the mosfet drain. This is what made Ainslie, and most of the "replicators" at Energetic Forum, think that the  mosfet and the load were ON for only 3.7 percent of the time..... they did not and in some cases STILL do not understand that in the circuit as given, when the mosfet drain voltage is HIGH the mosfet, and the load, are OFF.

Ainslie did use the timer circuit given in the Quantum article  .... which can be seen easily by anyone else who does it..... because her load temperature profiles correspond very accurately to a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load, given by the 555 timer as used in the circuit, and as we know her claims about battery recharging are simply not true.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4748 on: September 01, 2012, 11:27:22 PM »
Quote
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode  - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

She claims the "feedback diode" was "in the apparatus".

Yet when she began the present set of "experiments" using a single mosfet, in an attempt to repeat her earlier work... before anyone even conceived of the  5 mosfet system...... there is no "feedback diode" in evidence.

And in several "revised" schematics she presented in 2009 .... there is no recirculation diode in the schematic.

There was no diode used by Ainslie in the Quantum circuit. There is no evidence to support her claim and there is plenty of evidence that refutes it.

TIE? EIT? IET? Whatever.... In this "rewrite" of the Quantum article, which also gives some of Glen's results, the only diodes mentioned are the ones in the 555 circuit and the mosfet's body diode.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html

Ainslie simply lies when she claims that a recirculation/flyback/feedback diode was used in the original Quantum article. Nor was any used or claimed by her until well after the hard work in 2009 of replicators like Glen, .99, and..... me. It doesn't even appear in the EIT submission made in 2010.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4748 on: September 01, 2012, 11:27:22 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ionizer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4749 on: September 02, 2012, 02:34:05 AM »
Lol the cmos555 uses much smaller caps than normal 555. Here is a data sheet for ya.

Im not against pwm chips. I just wanted to clarify that the cmos 555 is a fine circuit. Using 2 of these LMC555, we are still below GM's claim that his 2 ICs use 1/4 of the power of a 555.  Using 2 lmc555, 1 as a freq oscillator and on as the pwm(shown below) using 12v input, these 2 chips would consume 300ua to 800ua max. 
12v/.8ma = 9.6mw = 2 lmc555 max

So what is your pwm IC spec for power consumed at 12v?

Its not a real big deal, but GMs statement might be misleading. 555 is not a useless IC.

MaGs

Offcource this does not change the fact that it still is wasting energy by discharging the cap onto a resistor.
That just isn't right.

Micro's usually run somwhere between 3,3 and 5 volts but as you know the operating current depends on the frequency and i don't see any in your example.

Anyway the 12f629 has a operating current of 100uA @ 1 MHz, 2.0V
Thats micro amps and not milli amps !

I do have something against 555 as oscillator or pwm they drift and they are not suitable for such application.
They also effect each other when they are placed on the same supply rail due to the RF noise they generate.
They are good for delay timers and led flashlights but not as high speed oscillator or pwm.
I'm not saying it's a bad chip but choose the right component for the right application.

A digital uc with a crystal clock is about the best you can get and it is programmable to do whatever you want it to do and the price good too.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4750 on: September 02, 2012, 03:29:36 AM »
Offcource this does not change the fact that it still is wasting energy by discharging the cap onto a resistor.
That just isn't right.

Micro's usually run somwhere between 3,3 and 5 volts but as you know the operating current depends on the frequency and i don't see any in your example.

Anyway the 12f629 has a operating current of 100uA @ 1 MHz, 2.0V
Thats micro amps and not milli amps !

I do have something against 555 as oscillator or pwm they drift and they are not suitable for such application.
They also effect each other when they are placed on the same supply rail due to the RF noise they generate.
They are good for delay timers and led flashlights but not as high speed oscillator or pwm.
I'm not saying it's a bad chip but choose the right component for the right application.

A digital uc with a crystal clock is about the best you can get and it is programmable to do whatever you want it to do and the price good too.

The cmos 555 consumes 50ua at 1.5v. using 2 of them = 100ua, typically.

Your IC   100uA @2v= 200uW     
2 cmos 555 IC's  100ua @1.5v= 150uW

Your IC uses 50 uW more than my 2 555's 

Man, you are losing soo much energy using that thing, that your IC just might be the cause of global warming. ;] lol 

Stop sweating the small things. ;]

MaGs


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4750 on: September 02, 2012, 03:29:36 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ionizer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4751 on: September 02, 2012, 04:34:29 AM »
The cmos 555 consumes 50ua at 1.5v. using 2 of them = 100ua, typically.

Your IC   100uA @2v= 200uW     
2 cmos 555 IC's  100ua @1.5v= 150uW

MaGs

At what frequency?

I hope your not comparing your 1 shot 555 'all switches open' to my uc running at 1 MHz cos that ain't fair bro.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4752 on: September 02, 2012, 05:39:29 AM »
Yep that 12f629 is a winner. Im checking them out as I may have a use for this.
I didnt realize it was a PIC.  So whats that mean @1mhz, as it says it runs at 20mhz? Is the running freq variable?
The data sheet is long and also other info is necessary, downloading.



MaGs



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4753 on: September 02, 2012, 11:07:21 AM »
Sorry to interrupt...... but let's see if we can decode this latest from the Red Queen Ainslie.

She now appears, in her convoluted way, to be standing by her retraction of her acknowledgement that the Quantum circuit is in error. In other words, if I am following this, she is NOW CLAIMING yet again that the Quantum circuit is CORRECT and that it does not make the inverted duty cycle from the claimed values.

Well, this is easy to check isn't it. In fact many people HAVE checked it. Even, as I recall... GMEAST has checked it.

I am just shaking my head over this. This is truly madness. Anyone can build that circuit, many people have built it, I've built it myself several times, it can be simulated..... and it always does just what I say it does and just the opposite of what Ainslie thinks it does.

It is impossible to argue with a MADWOMAN. She cannot even get her own story straight, and she will cheerfully tell you the sky is green if that is what her zipon delusion requires, and if you think it's blue, shame on you, check the Wiki, it's right there, the sky is green.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4754 on: September 02, 2012, 04:38:29 PM »
The standard of "professionalism" we all ought to aim for  ??? :
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2305.msg3290.html#msg3290
Quote
A sad little troll was Magsy the poor
little sod who crossed the line on the floor
To knock for admission inside the door
Where he asked if troll membership still needed more.

He then said what he could still bring to the table
Was a knowledge of circuitry where he was able
To advance the pretense of that scurrilous stable
That the unity barrier collapse was a fable

Though crowded the trolls said 'Pull up a chair.
Your knowledge is rank and your language is spare.
You're thin on IQ and you seem not to care
Which are precisely those talents that we hold most dear.'

So Magsy the man became MaGsy the mouse
The troll who lived in that rather soiled house
as an intern for schooling to learn how a souse
Can devolve from a troll to a lousy louse.

 
Rosie Pose

 

OneLink