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 Members: 84189
  • *Latest: Erwin360

  • *Total Posts: 897162
  • *Total Topics: 15807
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1604092 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4800 on: September 12, 2012, 02:11:53 PM »
@.99.... that scope shot is the signal from the mosfet Drain, with respect to the negative rail?? Or is that the signal "across the load", with the probe on the drain side and the reference on the battery side, or vice versa? I'm not getting it. And with a gate driver.... I am also surprised to see such a messy signal anywhere. Is it that the PG50 just can't keep up at the frequency chosen?

The scope shot is the trace across a 0.1 Ohm CSR.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4800 on: September 12, 2012, 02:11:53 PM »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4801 on: September 12, 2012, 02:15:57 PM »
It is a pity that Greg does not understand his error. He is actually computing the power in RL with his method, not the battery power.

When computing the power from the battery, the battery voltage is not derated by the duty cycle.

PinAVG is simply VBatAVG x IBatAVG

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4802 on: September 12, 2012, 03:26:35 PM »
TK,

Pages 33-40.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4802 on: September 12, 2012, 03:26:35 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4803 on: September 12, 2012, 05:00:28 PM »
It is a pity that Greg does not understand his error. He is actually computing the power in RL with his method, not the battery power.

When computing the power from the battery, the battery voltage is not derated by the duty cycle.

PinAVG is simply VBatAVG x IBatAVG



It is even moreso a pity if Greg allows "her" to attempt to teach him anything at all related to electronics.

Prior to .99 throwing in the towel on the Basic FG thread, she was again disputing the ability of the MOSFET capacitances to carry significant current.  She was discussing the waveform at the gate of Q2, and from her posts, it appears that she was referring to the FG output waveform as being the waveform at the gate of Q2.  Looking at the schematic, it is obvious that the waveform at the gate of Q2 is essentially the waveform indicated by the CSR trace (the gate of Q2 is, afterall, connected directly to the CSR).

She continues to demonstrate her inability to read her own simple schematic, let alone comprehend basic electronic concepts or understand how Q2 is biased on.

As .99 states, power delivered to or from the battery is simply the product of Vbatt and Iavg.

A pity indeed...

PW 

ADDED:  She also stated that she has corrected the errors in her documents.  Did I miss her corrections regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 even though there is sufficient gate drive indicated to do so?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4804 on: September 12, 2012, 06:12:04 PM »
OK, let me see if I can follow this argument and convince myself.

First, I hope we can agree that the instantaneous input power is the product of the true instantaneous battery voltage times the true instantaneous current thru the CVR. This accounts for both phase differences and dutycycle and results in an instantaneous power curve, which can then be averaged in the usual manner, by integrating then dividing by the time interval.

However we are trying to find the input power without using scope math or spreadsheet operations on lots of tiny samples.

We know that the apparently fluctuating battery voltage really isn't, so that the instantaneous battery voltage can be replaced by the heavily filtered, steady DC average voltage. This then can be multiplied by the instantaneous current curve to give the correct instantaneous power curve.

And then when we compute the average of the instantaneous power by integrating and dividing by the time, we can pull the constant battery voltage out of the integration and just integrate and average the current curve and then multiply, since the sum of (a constant times some values) is the same as a constant times ( the sum of some values).

Therefore, the average current multiplied by the average DC voltage results in the true input power value, and all phase and duty cycle issues are taken care of by this process, since there is no phase issue (the voltage isn't really fluctuating) and the duty cycle contribution is taken care of by averaging the instantaneous current across the "dead" times by integrating and dividing by the time interval.

There is still some difficulty in my mind with the average current figure. I accept that .99 has shown that the DMMs give a usable and reasonably accurate reading of the average current in the filtered CVR. In the present case, are the average current value determined by this method, and the RMS current value determined by multiplying the peak current of the always-positive rectangular pulse by the sqrt of the duty cycle, the same? Perhaps that adds to my confusion. Is this always going to be the case? I need another cup of coffee.

OK, I'm convinced, and I see the difference between measuring the supply to the black box, and what the black box is supplying to the load. The supply is providing a steady DC that is "sipped" periodically by the circuit and so is correctly analyzed as above. The load is seeing a pulsating, oscillating supply coming from the circuit and so may be analyzed using rms values of the pulsating voltage and current.


I am now very suspicious though of using the rectangular pulse simplification for the load, if the CVR signal is as messy as all that, shown in the scope trace above. How are the RMS values of voltage and current at the load actually determined, for the average power (Pavg = Vrms x Irms as used by gmeast) at the load? Are these "numbers in boxes", computed by gmeast's scope?



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4804 on: September 12, 2012, 06:12:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4805 on: September 12, 2012, 06:57:13 PM »
Here is an easy method I came up with that will provide an accurate Pout (power in RL) computation:

PoutAVG = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]2 x RL(hot)

Which means: take the RMS voltage across the CSR, divide it by the CSR value, square it, then multiply it by the resistance value of RL taken when it is at it's equalized hot temperature.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4806 on: September 12, 2012, 07:03:18 PM »
PW,

It's still further a pity that Greg is ignoring the write-up I posted, and now ignoring me.

I guess it's another case of the typical reaction; when things start looking as though you may be wrong, just bury your head in the sand and hopefully it will all go away.  ::)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4806 on: September 12, 2012, 07:03:18 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4807 on: September 12, 2012, 07:28:39 PM »
Here is an easy method I came up with that will provide an accurate Pout (power in RL) computation:

PoutAVG = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]2 x RL(hot)

Which means: take the RMS voltage across the CSR, divide it by the CSR value, square it, then multiply it by the resistance value of RL taken when it is at it's equalized hot temperature.
As is also given in the derivation in the image above from the Wiki on "rms". But it states there that this is valid for pure resistive loads. Is there a correction that needs to be applied due to the load's inductive reactance?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4808 on: September 12, 2012, 07:54:15 PM »
Astounding. Let's play math games, shall we.

Quote
The frequency = 62,500 Hz,
V = 25.3
RL = 10-Ohms
Duty cycle = 25%

1/(4x62,500) = duration of a single pulse = 0.000004 or 4usec
Here he has taken the frequency of 62.5 kHz, found the inverse to get the period of 16 microseconds, and THEN DIVIDED BY FOUR TO GET THE PULSE "ON" DURATION of 4 microseconds. In other words, he has put the duty cycle in at this point.
Quote
25.3V / 10-Ohms = 2.53A
25.3V x 2.53A = 64.009Watts per pulse
64.009watts x 0.000004sec = 0.000256036Watt-sec per pulse

There are 62,500 pulses per second so:
(0.000256036Watt-sec / pulse) x (62,500pulses / sec) = 16.00225Watts
In the latter calculation, I have essentially added up all of the identical packages of instantaneous power, but they are spaced apart over time.
That's right... you have sort of the average power figure here, with the duty cycle already factored in, from the first step. This 16 watts figure is an "average" power, already taking duty cycle into account.
You can get this same answer also by simply taking the voltage times current times duty cycle: 25.3 x 2.53 x 0.25 = 16.00225, or really just 16.0, respecting sig digs.
You have 64 Watts being dissipated for 1/4 second (0.00004 x 62,500 = 0.25) and you have 3/4 seconds off. So for that one second, you have an average power of 64 x 0.25 = 16 Watts. The duty cycle is incorporated in this average power figure already.... to put it in again later is... well, it's either a silly mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Quote
This is NOT continuous power.  For a 25% Duty Cycle, the FET (switch) is closed or "ON" for 25% of the entire pulse period and is open or "OFF" for the remainder of the pulse period or 75%. 

Now this will shock some: The ratio of "ON" times to "OFF" times is:
.25 / .75 = 1/3 even though the ratio of "ON" time to the entire pulse period is .25 (25% Duty Cycle).  My instincts tell me that I should divide the SUM of the Instantaneous powers by '3'.

This latter bit is incredible on its own... dividing by three? .... the "Sum" of the instantaneous powers already is the average power taking the duty cycle into account.  BUT ALSO..... he now applies the duty cycle, or this "one third" bastardization of it, AGAIN.

Quote
So, I will do that:
16.00225Watts / 3 = 5.334083Watts
An RMS calculation will yield similar results.

Facepalm. I guess actually dividing by four gave him an answer embarrassingly small, so he had to come up with dividing by three to get something "similar" to the RMS calculation results..... even though he already had the duty cycle in the "sum" of the powers.

Quote
So the inductive heater RL breaches the unity barrier likely because of the Oscillations and the EMF recovered by RL's By-Pass Diode.

The above analysis is just about as simple and unambiguous as it gets.

Regards,

Greg

Ah... no, not quite. The conclusion is not justified by the data; the mathematical analysis makes a couple of egregious errors and a totally unjustified "intuition" that tells Greg he should divide by the ratio of on-to-off time, rather than on-to-total-period time as is correct and proper......  for the second time he puts the duty cycle into the calculation, in order to make his new numbers "agree" with his old ones.

And yes, it's hilarious that an rms calculation does yield "similar" results: for a rectangular, positive-going pulse train, Vrms = V x sqrt(dutycycle) and Irms = I x sqrt(dutycycle) so
Vrms x Irms = (25.3 x 0.5) x (2.53 x 0.5) = 16.0. 
QED, this is the average power and duty cycle is already taken into account.

Now... my "instincts" tell me that any further division by, say, four, or three, or any other number is not justified for any reason, unless one is trying to make one's numbers fit some kind of preconceived idea... or "thesis"... without regard to actual fact.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4808 on: September 12, 2012, 07:54:15 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4809 on: September 12, 2012, 11:15:32 PM »
As is also given in the derivation in the image above from the Wiki on "rms". But it states there that this is valid for pure resistive loads. Is there a correction that needs to be applied due to the load's inductive reactance?
You already have the true rms current. You square that and multiply it by the RL resistance value measured at the equalized temperature. The correction factor is that you are multiplying the squared rms current by the real resistance of the load, i.e. the "RL(hot)" I specified.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4810 on: September 13, 2012, 12:37:19 AM »
Ok, thanks. It really can't get much clearer than that, can it.

The above analysis is about as simple and unambiguous as it gets.


My instincts tell me that if I divide Tar Baby's input power by, say, 2.... I'll be able to prove overunity performance too. And since 2 is clearly less than 3...... I'll have more OU than Glen. (Since dividing by a smaller number yields a larger answer).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4810 on: September 13, 2012, 12:37:19 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4811 on: September 13, 2012, 01:11:36 AM »
picowatt said,
Quote
She also stated that she has corrected the errors in her documents.  Did I miss her corrections regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 even though there is sufficient gate drive indicated to do so?

She's corrected nothing, only altered some things to correspond with reality after the fact. All of the things that _really_ need correction would invalidate the entire set of experiments and the manuscripts entirely, and she knows this fully well.

The "Official Publication" of her second daft manuscript on Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics "peer-reviewed" vanity blog still has the Q2 stack of four on the right hand side, in conflict with the schematic in the first daft manuscript "published" there. No retraction, no statement of error has appeared anywhere. Stella Nokia's two comments calling the manuscript's problems to the attention of the editors are still the last comments posted on that article.
And even more hilarious, through all of this, she has NEVER corrected, in any version, any of the cartoon "explanations" of the functioning of her circuit, which have the SOURCES of mosfets Q1 and Q2 wired together, the Gates of Q1 and Q2 wired together, and the Drains of Q1 and Q2 wired together.  In short, these cartoons, all three of them, and their attendant "explanations" have nothing to do with the actual circuit used, and it is impossible to reconcile the explanations given with the _actual_ wiring used, since the actual circuit has the Sources of Q2 connected to the Gate of Q1 and vice-versa.

Note the screenshot below. This is one of three similar cartoons in the daft manuscript. In Ainslie's crabbed scrawl we can clearly see the designations of the mosfet "legs" or pin assignments. This is a shot taken just now from the "corrected" daft manuscript on her honeypot forum.... the latest and greatest "edit" with the schematic "corrected" to show Q2s on the left. Too bad they didn't "correct" these cartoon representations, which are "explaining" something that corresponds to NO circuit that Ainslie has ever actually shown. They were clearly still made when she and her crew believed that they had all five mosfets in parallel.

Even more  important than that, though, is that all of the schematics in every version of both manuscripts are lies, because they falsely represent the position of the current monitoring resistor with respect to the function generator's Black output wire. IN EVERY PHOTO OF EVERY APPARATUS AINSLIE HAS EVER SHOWN, this black lead from the FG is clearly seen to be connected directly to the battery negative at the circuit's common ground point, which is incorrect because it provides a current path that bypasses the CVR. The schematics were only "corrected" well after the actual data was taken, when this "error" was poynted out to Ainslie in the forum. The experiments were NOT done with the schematics pictured, the CVR data was NOT taken correctly and the manuscripts are simply lying and must be withdrawn for this reason alone, but there are many other reasons as well.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4812 on: September 13, 2012, 03:48:31 AM »
Greg has been laughing at himself for his silly "divide by 3" mistake he made. Good thing he figured that out on his own.  ;) ;)

What is he going to do when he realizes his even sillier mistake of derating the battery voltage by the duty cycle?  ::)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4813 on: September 13, 2012, 04:03:38 AM »
Is he going to issue a "revised" calculation, where he goes ahead and applies the whole 25 percent duty cycle fully twice? The suspense is killing me.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4814 on: September 13, 2012, 09:00:33 AM »
Bada-bing, bada Boom! And there it is, folks, error upon error compounded, false conclusions that aren't supported by facts or "sanity checking" at all.

Heck, if I had twice or three times the power coming out as in, I'd build another identical unit and run the first one on the output of the second one, through a cap/diode, and then use the output of the second one to run the first one. Wouldn't you? Of course if the load is being heated by zipons instead of regular electrical power that wouldn't work, would it.  In fact .... that's probably why the overunity result ONLY APPEARS IN CALCULATIONS OF THIS KIND, not in any real form that can actually be used, or measured by different means.


Incidentally, I'm loving the current hypocrisy about the DMM measurements. When I did DMM measurements on Tar Baby, months ago, I was perfectly aware of their usefulness in this manner -- .99 is not the first to explore this issue, although his videos are very well done and very helpful-- and I even showed how my DMM measurements agreed with Ohm's Law at a number of different DC levels, they agreed with a moving coil analog meter, and with scope measurements using my HP180a scope's graticule markers and amplifier setting. And yet, Ainslie was profoundly dismissive of my DMM meter readings, even though she could not actually refute them. Of course I was showing things she claimed were impossible, like the current flowing through the function generator, things she still cannot account for or grasp.

Now, of course, DMM readings are fully acceptable on the NERD side of things .... because they are being used by a sycophant instead of a skeptic.

What a bunch of howling errors and conclusions though. Everything from the false precision of a tenth of a milliwatt in the claimed measurements, to missing the accurate values by a factor of FOUR, or three, or two, depending on which incorrect calculation he's laughing about today.

Of course there is one way to protect oneself from ridicule for these mistakes.... simply refuse to post any more real data or calculations.  Or at least, say you aren't. But then when you do, you should be extra careful that you don't stick your foot even further down your throat.

Quote
I'm not going to show any more calculations in this forum or argue about them because I have 3 conservative methods for running the numbers and they all check with each other.  - ooohh ... a one-sentence paragraph ... someone will say something about that, I'm sure. Oh look, now it's 3 sentences, never mind.

Three different methods, all making the same mistake, so of course they all check with each other. The lack of understanding of the effect of duty cycle in this person who claims to understand PWM power calculations is astounding, really, and the clear evidence for the lack of understanding is in his recent explanation and "correction" of the divide-by-three error.

 

OneLink