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: 896216
  • *Total Topics: 15780
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1584867 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4815 on: September 13, 2012, 02:09:49 PM »
Creative power analysis at its best. Good stuff Greg.  :o :

If you don't like your wave form, flip your scope leads; now ON is OFF, and OFF is ON. Now your Pin is even lower than before!  ::)


PS. TK, I was indeed the first to explore the DMM method of input power measurement, and it was always met with ridicule or indifference. Check the date my videos were uploaded. Also, I had been proposing this method back in the day when Harvey was involved in the testing with Rose (a few years ago), and it is in my "detailed analysis" write up posted about a year ago.

And I might add that the Pout method I posted above, is also most likely a first. At least I've not yet seen anyone suggest that method. I first posted that when I developed my version of Rosemary's latest circuit. The Pin and Pout measurements are right on the schematic for that burst oscillator design, and that was posted at least a year ago as well.

For the record. ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4815 on: September 13, 2012, 02:09:49 PM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4816 on: September 13, 2012, 08:09:59 PM »
Thanks for the correction. I am happy to acknowledge your priority, because you did such a comprehensive test and explanation of the DMM utility. However, it's one of those "secrets" that may have been more commonly known than is appreciated. Your work stands out as an exceptionally clear and detailed account and I, for one, am grateful for it.

Not many people mentioned it when Ainslie was denigrating my use of the DMMs, though, even when I showed calibration to Ohm's law and between other instruments, at DC and at the Ainslie operating frequency. She didn't accept my results with the DMM, even though they agreed with more difficult scope measurements.

The Pout method you are talking about is the use of PoutAVG = IRL(rms)2 x RL(hot) = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]2 x RL(hot) ?
It's good that you specify that the load should be hot and therefore at a stable resistance, but since IRL(rms) = VCSR(rms)/RCSR, isn't your method contained in the derivation in the Wiki article on rms, as in the snippet attached below?


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4817 on: September 13, 2012, 11:17:58 PM »
[snip]... isn't your method contained in the derivation in the Wiki article on rms, as in the snippet attached below?
No. The point of my method is two-fold:

1) The Irms is not part of a v(t) x i(t) computation. It's not required. My method requires only that an rms value be obtained for the current. This is done with either a good True RMS DMM (signal components less than 100kHz), or using the RMS "measure" function on your scope.

2) No one to date as far as I know uses P=I2R to obtain Pout with these type of circuits. The innovation here is that part 1) is the hardest thing to obtain, and that's real easy. The hot value for R is quite simple, and together with Irms will provide for an accurate Pout measurement.

I'm not saying I came up with P=I2R. The novelty is applying it to these type of circuits.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4817 on: September 13, 2012, 11:17:58 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4818 on: September 14, 2012, 12:47:37 AM »
No. The point of my method is two-fold:

1) The Irms is not part of a v(t) x i(t) computation. It's not required. My method requires only that an rms value be obtained for the current. This is done with either a good True RMS DMM (signal components less than 100kHz), or using the RMS "measure" function on your scope.

2) No one to date as far as I know uses P=I2R to obtain Pout with these type of circuits. The innovation here is that part 1) is the hardest thing to obtain, and that's real easy. The hot value for R is quite simple, and together with Irms will provide for an accurate Pout measurement.

I'm not saying I came up with P=I2R. The novelty is applying it to these type of circuits.
Uh... OK..... but the derivation in the Wiki article is shown to apply to complex waveforms as long as an rms current value can be obtained "somehow". But sure, if you are a bench tech measuring "these types of circuits" presumably meaning noisy PWMs or switching power supplies, you already have an integrating oscilloscope sitting in front of you and you know how to use it.... so you would probably not use your method directly.... even though the scope will be doing it internally.
I think the real contribution and novelty is in your insistence and demonstration that one can indeed make good measurements, reliable and accurate, with your method and without an expensive digital scope, as long as some basic knowledge is present. That is certainly worth the time and effort, and your patience in explaining things to "them folks" is admirable, and something I'll never have. "These types of circuits" hopefully will include many more of the electrical and electronic circuits that free energy hobbyists will be experimenting with, so that better power measurements can be made with confidence with simple and available gear.  The TRMS DMM is a handy item to have. It would be really great if more people would read or watch and understand your various documents and videos. I know I've learned from them, so I thank you for your efforts. I've made my own share of silly errors and you've been patient enough to guide me to correct ways of thinking. Would that you could be so successful with RA.

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4819 on: September 14, 2012, 01:04:55 AM »
I see Rose has found time between acting as a sock-puppet for someone else's questions on her own forum, and humiliating herself with sock-puppetry of her own on here, to step in and revise history once again.


She's bravely taken the opportunity to delete .99's infinitely courteous and on-topic posts and to paint them as somehow argumentative or abusive. I'd almost feel sorry for Greg being pulled along by the nose, if it wasn't for the fact he's proving to be a total bell end.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4819 on: September 14, 2012, 01:04:55 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4820 on: September 14, 2012, 01:51:16 AM »
That is indeed truly amazing. Is he really going to be able to just get away with applying the duty cycle twice?
He did actually correct his "divide by three" and went ahead and divided by four, apparently, to get his new figure of something like 4 Watts.

In post #163 he describes his procedure to obtain the figure.

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
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 is right, and in other words, the duty cycle has already been applied here, since the 4 microsecond ON time is 1/4 of the 16 microsecond PERIOD of a 62.5 kHz oscillation. You have added up 1/4 second's worth of ON times and averaged their power over the whole second. The 16.00225 Watts, artificially precise, is Joules PER SECOND and you have one second's worth .... meaning that the duty cycle of 1/4  has already been factored into this figure.

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'.

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

This step has apparently been "corrected" and now Gmeast divides by 4 here, presumably. Thus he obtains a figure of about 4 Watts here.

But he has already applied the duty cycle once, to get to the 16 Watts figure !! How can he possibly think that it should be applied again?
And it appears in his latest, by using the mean battery voltage and the mean current he is again making the same mistake twice.

Am I wrong in this thinking?

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4821 on: September 14, 2012, 08:04:22 AM »
That is indeed truly amazing. Is he really going to be able to just get away with applying the duty cycle twice?
He did actually correct his "divide by three" and went ahead and divided by four, apparently, to get his new figure of something like 4 Watts.

In post #163 he describes his procedure to obtain the figure.

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
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 is right, and in other words, the duty cycle has already been applied here, since the 4 microsecond ON time is 1/4 of the 16 microsecond PERIOD of a 62.5 kHz oscillation. You have added up 1/4 second's worth of ON times and averaged their power over the whole second. The 16.00225 Watts, artificially precise, is Joules PER SECOND and you have one second's worth .... meaning that the duty cycle of 1/4  has already been factored into this figure.

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'.

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

This step has apparently been "corrected" and now Gmeast divides by 4 here, presumably. Thus he obtains a figure of about 4 Watts here.

But he has already applied the duty cycle once, to get to the 16 Watts figure !! How can he possibly think that it should be applied again?
And it appears in his latest, by using the mean battery voltage and the mean current he is again making the same mistake twice.

Am I wrong in this thinking?

Nope ........ but gmeast (greg) gets my FAMED illustrative award for his contribution in "Over Unity" computations ...... need some scissors greg ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4821 on: September 14, 2012, 08:04:22 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4822 on: September 14, 2012, 08:10:44 AM »
Then there's Rosemary Ainslie that needs to "grow up" and learn how to properly test a circuit a new way ....

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4823 on: September 14, 2012, 08:24:38 AM »
Then theirs Rosemary Ainslie that needs to "grow up" and learn how to properly test a circuit a new way ....
there is...  ::)  you really should learn the difference between there, their, they're and there's. ::)

there is a place.  eg: go over there.
their is possesive.  eg: their house is over there.
they're is a contraction of 'they are'.
there's is a contraction of 'there is'.

there. now you are a little smarter. need 'hooked on phonics' fizzy?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4823 on: September 14, 2012, 08:24:38 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4824 on: September 14, 2012, 02:03:18 PM »
I see Rose has found time between acting as a sock-puppet for someone else's questions on her own forum, and humiliating herself with sock-puppetry of her own on here, to step in and revise history once again.


She's bravely taken the opportunity to delete .99's infinitely courteous and on-topic posts and to paint them as somehow argumentative or abusive. I'd almost feel sorry for Greg being pulled along by the nose, if it wasn't for the fact he's proving to be a total bell end.

I've been banned from Rose's playground. I guess it's a "complete" ban as I am not able to read the forum at all...and it's not set to expire.  ;D ;D

Thanks Rose, I truly mean that.  :)

Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4825 on: September 14, 2012, 02:24:03 PM »
I've been banned from Rose's playground. I guess it's a "complete" ban as I am not able to read the forum at all...and it's not set to expire.  ;D ;D

Thanks Rose, I truly mean that.  :)


So, poynt, how much money to stop me live-streaming the site so you can see?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4825 on: September 14, 2012, 02:24:03 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4826 on: September 14, 2012, 02:30:10 PM »
It would be better spent on some good cause of your choice Sean.

But thanks for the offer.  :P


Offline mrsean2k

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4827 on: September 14, 2012, 02:40:40 PM »
I was threatening you rather than soliciting funds :-)


Reading that site is a bit like poking at a very sore tooth (that's excluding contributions from here: what I can follow, I've found very interesting)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4828 on: September 14, 2012, 03:17:26 PM »
I was threatening you rather than soliciting funds :-)
I know. ;)

Quote
Reading that site is a bit like poking at a very sore tooth (that's excluding contributions from here: what I can follow, I've found very interesting)
It's not easy for anyone to read those silly posts over there I imagine.

It's a pity Greg has chosen to bury his head in the sand rather than consider the possibility that he has erred. But don't be surprised if one day soon he posts a big apology to all those he has offended, once he determines that his control batteries significantly outlast his device under test (DUT) batteries. But then again, folks like Rose and Greg have a knack for being creative when it comes to manipulating the tests or numbers to sway in their favor. So, it could go either way.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #4829 on: September 14, 2012, 08:18:55 PM »
I've been banned from Rose's playground. I guess it's a "complete" ban as I am not able to read the forum at all...and it's not set to expire.  ;D ;D

Thanks Rose, I truly mean that.  :)

Seriously? They've kicked you out completely? What an abrupt change in her attitude. This is what usually happens when cognitive dissonance becomes intolerable. The offending eye is plucked out, so that it will not see what is threatening to the mind's deeply held misconceptions.

You can of course still read the site using a proxy. But the images won't show up, of course. There has been no significant activity since your message from Ainslie warning you not to post in gmeast's thread.

 

OneLink