Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 11:11:53 PM

Title: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 11:11:53 PM
If permitted.....

The only claim I make about this Tar Baby of mine is that it performs just like the NERD device in all significant respects.

(RA has repeatedly denied that I am replicating her circuit. So fine... this Tar Baby is all mine, even though it is eerily similar to hers.)

Much discussion has proceeded elsewhere and I've made a few videos detailing my present work, and there will be more to come. This is the most recent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY)

I'll be happy to take constructive criticism and suggestions. Ranters and ad hominem abusers need not bother to post, because I am the master of BIPS.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 25, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
A proposal for consideration:

I don't know if this will work and I don't have the components on hand to try it out. But I'm thinking that an optoisolator might work to isolate the FG's current path from the system, with minimum extra additions to the main circuit.

Here's what I'm thinking of, and I'd appreciate advice on whether or not it would even work, and also what effect it might have on oscillations.... and of course, inadvertent battery charging by the function generator. Well, at least it seems clear that it would eliminate that latter possibility.


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 01:10:33 AM
Can anyone tell me the amp-hour capacity of a Raylite 669P 12 Volt silver-calcium battery? I can't figure it out in the units they are using on the manufacturer's web site -- such as it is -- , but the best outside source I've read so far puts it at 50 A-H. Other, less reliable information has it at 40 A-H. This is a significant difference, and I don't know which one, if any, is correct.

I'd really like to get the exact figure.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 01:47:32 AM
Mosfets.... how do _they_ work ? ?   ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU)

(Be patient towards the end... it takes me a minute to coax them, but the oscillations do come out to play....)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 01:52:11 AM
(snip) Ranters and ad hominem abusers need not bother to post, because I am the master of BIPS.

And nobody, out of over 100 page views already, deigns to comment at all? Are they _all_ ranters and abusers?

Ok... carrying on, then.

(Heh.. .just giving an example of an abusive rant. Pay no attention to the man... the very short man with the toothbrush moustaches---- behind the curtain. )
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on March 26, 2012, 03:35:09 AM
A proposal for consideration:

I don't know if this will work and I don't have the components on hand to try it out. But I'm thinking that an optoisolator might work to isolate the FG's current path from the system, with minimum extra additions to the main circuit.

Here's what I'm thinking of, and I'd appreciate advice on whether or not it would even work, and also what effect it might have on oscillations.... and of course, inadvertent battery charging by the function generator. Well, at least it seems clear that it would eliminate that latter possibility.

 I can't see one good reason why the opto-couplers wouldn't work. The only thing that might be a negative issue is dependent on the signal frequency. The rise time response of the opto couplers may be a little slow and introduce slur if your input signal is in the megahertz range. Other than that, I don't see any great issues.
 
 If you want to retain the possibiltiy of parasitic oscillations arising, then the circuit as shown might still allow that to happen. If however you only want a faithful reproduction of the input signal to your mosfets, I'd be inclined to connect a resistor anywhere in the range value of 150 k to 1 meg between the gates of the Mosfets and ground. This will help to damp floating voltages, and help prevent stray capacitance from interfering with the operation of the Mosfets, and also from interfering with the true input signal.
 
 Cheers
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 03:50:16 AM
Thanks, hoptoad. I think you are realizing what I want to do. I am trying to remove the FG's current path and power source from the switched power circuit in the TarBaby device. Whatever method I eventually use it must preserve the oscillations in the full 5-mosfet design. As soon as the stores open tomorrow I'll pick up a few optocouplers, plain and triac kind, to see what happens next. The required switch rate is absurdly slow.

The subject matter of the previous video, mosfet switching, seems so basic to you and me that we don't even think about it. However some other people working with similar circuits...you know who I mean, probably.... missed out on so many basics that they _can't_ even think about it. Believe me, years ago I spent weeks trying to convince...err... on..... somebody else that mosfets switched like this.

And now it's deja vu all over again.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 03:59:12 AM
So.... as demonstrated, the oscillations in the mosfet switch demo circuit come out to 9 cycles in 9 major divisions of the scope's screen. The timebase is set to 0.2 microseconds PER major division. How do we determine the frequency from this data?

ANSWER: since frequency is measured in Cycles PER second, or Hertz.... and we have counted 9 Cycles PER 1.8 microseconds, what is the frequency?

We perform the operation 9 cycles DIVIDED BY 1.8 microseconds. Notice the units: the answer, whatever it is numerically, will have the "dimensions" or "units" of.... CYCLES PER SECOND. So let us calculate: 9 / 0.0000018 == 5 000 000 Cycles PER second, or 5 MegaHertz, to within rough reading accuracy. Actually it's a bit higher since there were a bit over 9 cycles in the 9 major divisions.


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 04:51:19 AM
The version of the Tar Baby that I'm working with here uses IRF830a mosfets in all 5 positions. The circuit that the Tar Baby is modeled after, the NERD device, uses the IRFPG50 mosfet, and it seems to be the claim of the NERD RATS that this part is critical to the "effect" they are talking and talking and talking about demonstrating. So I thought it might be interesting to compare some electrical parameters of the two power Hexfet, avalanche-rated mosfets.

The first thing one notices is that the PG50 is in the TO-247 package, an awe-inspiring slab of black plastic with beefy leads. The 830a is in the standard TO-220 case which looks tiny by comparison, and its leads are smaller and have the standard 0.100 inch spacing, so they fit nicely into breadboards and dip sockets and headers.

The most critical parameters for most uses are listed at the top of the first page of the data sheets.

Further parameters of interest are the various capacitances and avalanche energies, transconductances, and so on.

I've attached the data sheets. To my eye, if one does not absolutely need the 1000 volt standoff capacity of the PG50, one might be better off simply using the 830a, since they are somewhat cheaper, smaller, and seem to perform similarly at low power settings. In fact the 830 has lower Rds and better transconductance and will dissipate less power at the mosfet itself at power levels within its range.
In other words, it should run cooler than the NERD mosfets at similar power.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 26, 2012, 06:04:59 AM
Hi TK:

You had a question about the capacitor test with respect to the capacitor size.

When I originally crunched the numbers I think the power dissipation in the other circuit was quoted as being about 30 watts.  I am now suspecting that was quite high.  I played with the number crunching and quickly realized with a single 25,000 uF capacitor it would drain very quickly assuming 30 watts being dissipated in the load resistor.  I also now realize that I wasn't even factoring in the fact that the total power dissipation would include the MOSFETs themselves and the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.

The bottom line is that I quadrupled the capacitance to 100,000 uF and crunched the numbers again and realized that they would still drain very quickly.   This is a real concern because if you let the caps drain to zero volts then they will continue past that and start to reverse-voltage.  Using polarized electrolytics this would be very very bad as you well know.

The simple crunching I did was to estimate the power dissipation.  Then calculate the energy loss in the 100,000 uF cap from 12 volts to about 6 volts (I think).  So then I could make an estimate how long that voltage drop would take based on the energy burn rate.   You have to keep in mind that the energy burn rate is not going to slow down because you are really talking about a voltage drop from 60 volts to 54 volts.   I had to base it on a 6-volt drop so the circuit could run for about 10 seconds.  I would have preferred something like a one-volt drop only but then the time got too short.  Again, assuming 30 watts power dissipation, you have to work around that if you only have a 100,000 uF cap.

So I would recommend that you make your biggest cap possible, and scope the voltage across the cap array when you switch on the circuit.  If it drops like a stone then disconnect right away so that you don't reverse-voltage the cap array.

If the total dissipation is more like a few watts as opposed to 30 watts then you should see a gentle voltage decrease across the cap and still see the 'magic' oscillations.  Then you can crunch the numbers and calculate the power dissipation in the circuit.   If you can time say 20 seconds and then do 10 runs like that and average your measurements, you will have a very decent number for the total power dissipation in the circuit.  You know the voltage so you know the average current flow.  That means you can calculate the power dissipation in the 50-ohm resistor inside the fucntion generator, and the power dissipation in in inductive resistor.  Look, you now get a very nice bonus, you can derive the power dissipation in the MOSFET array:  The power dissipated in the MOSFET array is the total power dissipation minus the 50-ohm resistor dissipation minus the inductive resistor dissipation.

Now, if you had a means to control the magic oscillation frequency, perhaps with an opto-isolator arrangement or something else, you could expect to see a trend.  The lower the oscillation frequency the less time the MOSFETs are in the linear region and dissipating power.  So if you lowered the oscillation frequency and ran the capacitor test again, you should be able to derive less power proportionally dissipated in the MOSFET array.

Finally, I tried to keep in simple for Rosie and I didn't want to mention the potential for the capacitors to reverse-voltage right away.  If anybody was going to go forward I was going to mention it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 26, 2012, 06:21:28 AM
A little side comment about the whole capacitor test was that I wanted to emulate only a single battery with a large cap in the middle of the array of batteries to "keep it battery-like" if that makes sense.  This was to keep Rosemary happy, she would see exactly the same oscillations on her scope and the power source was still predominantly batteries so any imagined "battery effects" could still take place.

Anyway, I think that the test is an interesting and worthwhile exercise.  One of the important concepts is that if you have five batteries in series, each battery will contribute 20% of the power required to run the circuit.  Alternatively, if the bank is being recharged, each battery will take 20% of the recharging power.

So by "slipping a capacitor" into the battery array and replacing one of the batteries, whatever the capacitor is indicating will also be happening within each of the individual batteries.

And certainly the capacitor will go down in voltage as the circuit runs, even if your DSO is spitting out garbage data that says that the battery bank is being recharged.  That's because the capacitor is more accurate than the DSO and can't be fooled.

Just one little tweak:  Assuming 100,000 uF and 25-volt rated electrolytics, and assuming the batteries are actually 12.6 volts, then why not time how long it takes to go from 15.6 volts to 9.6 volts for high power dissipation.   For low power dissipation, time how long it takes to go from 13.1 volts to 12.1 volts.  That way you are quasi-centered around the true battery voltage and you get a slightly more accurate average power dissipation measurement for the circuit.

I also have a caveat:  In thinking about the process in my head I am quite certain that as the cap discharges the rate of voltage drop will actually start to accelerate, not slow down.  We are so conditioned to expect that the rate of the voltage drop on a cap will slow down as the cap voltage decreases.  So it may seem counter-intuitive but indeed, as the voltage on the cap decreases, the rate of the voltage drop will increase.  Kind of a fun brain twister. (** WRONG ** - I failed my own brain teaser.  The rate of voltage drop will NOT increase, it will decrease but very slowly.  Typically it will be so slow so that it will almost look like the voltage is dropping linearly.  That was my Doh! moment.)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 26, 2012, 07:07:57 AM
TK:

I went back and reread your posting.  You have only 40,000 uF to work with.  So I recommend that you scope the cap voltage like I said and watch very carefully.  Do not use a digital multimeter with a 1/2 second display update.  You might get squirted in the eye with some primordial ooze if you are not careful.

The fact that you are typically running with 30 volts instead of 60 volts may save you here because that's 1/4 the power dissipation rate as compared to 60 volts.

I have this gut feel that those 25,000 uF 25-volt "Coke can" electrolytic capacitors are relatively cheap.  Waaaay back I used to go to these 'electronics depot' type places that had recycled and Grey market and who-knows-what parts.  You may find some big caps in a place like that on the cheap.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 11:40:48 AM
Thanks, MH, I'm with you all the way. I've also got 16 x 4700 uF @ 40 v surge caps but that would be too much wiring for my liking. Unfortunately, I live in an intellectual "black hole" and there is only one electronic surplus place that will have big cap pulls from obsolete gear and they will be mixandmatch (but I'm going there today to take a look). The only decent "new" parts place is 100 miles away, the Fry's in Austin. Of course we have RS, if you need a battery or a common resistor or a cellphone... but for electronic components it's a weird wasteland. Not like TO where I could just walk down to the hardware store and browse thru their component section where they had _every_ Japanese 2sk transistor and _every_ 74 series logic chip IN STOCK to support the EE department at UofT, or go into one of three different surplus stores to get the "weird stuff". I even found a medical electroshock machine in Active Surplus there one time... nice bank of big caps in that one !!
But around here, electronics means car stereos and not much else, and the big caps they sell for those -- really impressive big caps -- are just too expensive for me to mess with. But sure, some of these car stereos around here will have FARADS of capacitance stuck into the trunk somewhere to pump that drumandbass into their blown speakers.



Meanwhile, I found this hour-long seminar on.... power measurements in AC circuits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=MHa18mC2ZLc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=MHa18mC2ZLc)

Your capacitor test will be a good easy one to do to test for battery charging vs. battery discharging by the circuit. But when I get down to actual power measurements, _assuming_ that the performance of the circuit can be derived from electrical parameters at all -- I'll be using the Clarke-Hess 2330 sampling V-A-W meter as a power analyzer. No scope traces to interpret, just digital readouts of nice red numbers. I'll measure the input for a while with the load at equilibrium temperature, then I'll swap leads quickly and measure the output for a while at the same equilibrium temperature, then re-charge lather rinse repeat.

Later on, I'll subject the Tar Baby to the fancy Tek scope with internal math and we'll see what kind of nice colored wiggly lines it will make. You don't want to skip ahead to the "money shot" already, do you ?
 8)

--TK

(Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 12:22:25 PM
There are still a few points about the open-source, help-to-replicate NERD RAT device I would like to understand.

First there's the value of the inductive-resistive load. I've seen inductances cited that are all over the map. I've seen 1.5 HENRY posted somewhere as the inductance of the load. This seems implausible to me based on the waveforms I've seen and what I know about the construction of common water heater elements. Also I have little confidence in instrumental measurements, especially difficult ones like inductance, that have been reported concerning that device.

Then there's the question of the battery capacity of the batteries that team used. I can't figure it out from the company's website catalog listing of the battery they used. The most reliable outside source I could find (humbugger) has it at 50 A-H, but the "official" reports of the NERD RAT device have it listed as 40 A-H. If battery draw-down tests are being considered, one would normally like to know the actual rated battery capacity, just in case someone cared enough to wonder if a 25 percent difference in actual capacity could affect such a test at all.
( 40 plus (25 PER cent of 40) = 50 ).


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 12:23:35 PM
How do we know the state of charge of a battery? It is not easily and directly related to the simple, no-load or lightlyloaded terminal voltage measurements that are so often cited as "evidence" for the battery's charge state. The battery's " discharge curve" must be considered, along with the load's demands. That's why drawdown tests or simple side-by-side tests like performance under a _heavy_ load are preferred to simple voltage measurements.
 
 What do we expect to see, as a measurement of the terminal voltage of such a battery?
 
 1) when it's being recharged by an automatic battery charger designed or approved for the battery type
 2) immediately after it's been fully charged by the charger, still no-load
 3) one hour after 2), unused, no load
 4) when first hooked up to the operating circuit, under load
 5) after running the circuit for long enough to "theoretically" (using conventional theory) to have transferred half of its stored capacity to the circuit and the load, tested both under load, and unloaded?
 
 For my 12-volt, 5 A-H, sealed lead-acid batteries, I can answer some of the questions.
 
 1) is about 14 volts. I am using an automotive "automatic" charger that charges at up to 2 amps and that goes into a "float" mode when it senses that the battery is full. How it knows, I dunno... but I am assuming it does and is consistent between batteries. (actually I do know, but it's not too important I hope)
 2) is about 13.8 volts
 3) is about 13.5 or 13.6 volts
 4) is about 13.0 volts (so I get about 39 volts from my stack when first running the TarBaby circuit)
 5) is still unknown

The most important point here is that simply citing "the battery is still over 12 volts" is NOT evidence that it is fully charged. In fact, if a large 12 volt silver-calcium-lead-acid battery IS fully charged, its terminal voltage should be something over THIRTEEN volts when measured under no or light load.

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 12:55:38 PM
What does "percent" mean? Well, it's PER cent, where the "cent" part means "100".

So if we have a quantity, call it A, and we want another quantity that is, say, 25 percent of A, how do we get there by calculation?

Well, first we take quantity A and DIVIDE it by 100. (PER cent means "divide by 100").  So in strange math symbols, we do A/100. The answer is one percent of A. Then we multiply that by the 25 part to arrive at the total (25 percent OF A) where, strangely enough, the "OF" part indicates a multiplication operation is to be performed somewhere.

Multiplication and division are inverse processes, and usually a division problem can be re-written as a multiplication problem and vice-versa.


(I rly hope that will be enough for the basic maths. I think it's important to clear up misconceptions and misconstruals that should have been taken care of long ago (like in the eighth grade algebra class that somehow got skipped) so that people are at least speaking a common language when they discuss complex issues.... like multiplication and division.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 01:32:50 PM
Significant digits, accuracy, and precision. Well.

In this age of digital everything, calculators that display twelve digits after a decimal point, DMMs that poke numbers at you as fast as you can read them off.... I often see people reporting calculations from instrumental readings that have TOO MANY digits to be realistic.

Accuracy means that the reading you get agrees with the "true" real-world state of affairs. Precision means how high-resolution a reading you actually get. Let's say I'm shooting at a target. All my shots fall into a tight group in the same place on the target. That's precision. But all my shots are three inches low and two to the left, even though I'm aiming at the bullseye in the sight. That's accuracy. They are different but interlinked.

Note that if a person claims that a particular value, call it "A", is equal to, say, 5.0789 volts.... the claim is that A is NOT equal to 5.0788 volts, nor to 5.0790 volts, nor any other value. But the true real-world value, under the claim, "could be" 5.07893, or 5.07896, or some other value in that finer range, and the claim would still be true.

Get the picture? In the first place, if my voltmeter reads 5.00 volts, and is accurate-- my precision is only good to three "significant digits". I don't know if the true value is 5.001 volts or 5.009 volts. So when I use that 5.00 volt figure in my calculations, I MUST ignore all extra digits of false precision that my calculator gives me. Citing them is the same as claiming I know the input data to equivalent precision... and I don't.

Now if I'm reading the values off the oscilloscope... I can only read the trace position value to within about half a "tick mark" accuracy, so that means any value I read will have only that level of precision, and if the scope's baseline or amplifier gain is incorrect, then all my readings will be inaccurate: not only "blurry" but also in the "wrong place". So my report of 5.00 volts, while "precise" in that all the figures do indicate real readings on an instrument... the true real-world value might be 4.00 volts, because I've set my baseline wrong or the scope's amplifier is out of calibration.

This is where the issue of "AC coupling" versus "DC coupling" on a scope trace could come into play. Where's the baseline that measurements are made from? Inquiring minds want to know.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 01:47:32 PM
So... when _I_ speak about energy, power, Joules and Watts and Amps and Volts and all that jazz, you aren't going to have to learn some new strange language where words mean whatever I want them to mean and can change with the wind direction and relative humidity. I will  be using standard physics and electrical engineering terms and definitions, and if I go astray somewhere PLEASE somebody let me know.

If overunity device performance can't be tested, evaluated, or described using standard terminology and methodology -- yet they are to be built out of off-the-shelf simple components --, I am afraid we are sunk before we even get launched.

And no matter what my own personal weird theories are (I believe in pushing gravity, no dark matter, eleven dimensions, and a polarizable vacuum, for example, so there) you will not have to read about them, to understand how the Tar Baby performs.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on March 26, 2012, 02:50:15 PM
There are still a few points about the open-source, help-to-replicate NERD RAT device I would like to understand.

First there's the value of the inductive-resistive load. I've seen inductances cited that are all over the map. I've seen 1.5 HENRY posted somewhere as the inductance of the load. This seems implausible to me based on the waveforms I've seen and what I know about the construction of common water heater elements. Also I have little confidence in instrumental measurements, especially difficult ones like inductance, that have been reported concerning that device.

Then there's the question of the battery capacity of the batteries that team used. I can't figure it out from the company's website catalog listing of the battery they used. The most reliable outside source I could find (humbugger) has it at 50 A-H, but the "official" reports of the NERD RAT device have it listed as 40 A-H. If battery draw-down tests are being considered, one would normally like to know the actual rated battery capacity, just in case someone cared enough to wonder if a 25 percent difference in actual capacity could affect such a test at all.
( 40 plus (25 PER cent of 40) = 50 ).

Hi TK, glad to see this claim is finally being rigorously tested as PER the scientific method!

About the batteries, we never did get a straight answer from Rosemary. Her donated set is the only set I have ever seen without a model number ?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/821/

I'm delighted to see that everyone's answering TK's question.  I'm not sure I'd dare.  And IF that was a question by Glen Lettenmaier related to batteries - then here's the thing.  We were donated those beautiful Raylites.  But they have no ratings detailed on the battery itself.  We've tried to determine this and were advised that they're 40 ampere hour AND subsequently - that they're 60 ampere hour.  Don't know for sure and there's no way that we can find this out definitively.

We erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper.  Here's the 'extract' from our paper.
 
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries’ rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis now, for over 18 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 12 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. Bearing in mind that the batteries’ rating is is not more than 60AH, there is evidence of out performance related to that rating.  However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This would require a detailed analysis of the supply’s electrolytic properties that is outside the scope of this presentation and expertise. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

So TK - YOU do the math.  And when you do this - factor in the continual use of 6 batteries only - as 2 were taken out of circulation some time back.  Or better still - average it at 7 batteries.  And then factor in that we've had possession of those batteries since late Jan early feb of 2010. Which means that its usage has been FAR more extensive than the conservatively assessed 18 months of continual use.  The usage has NOW actually spanned closer to 26 months.  And then try and explain why there is apparently absolutely NO LOSS OF VOLTAGE OVER ANY OF THE BATTERIES SINCE THE DAY WE TOOK POSSESSION. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

As you can see when they "erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper." they even got that wrong and went the wrong side of "caution".

See Rosemary's blog post #232, January 23 2012, for more information on her calculations and battery ratings. I would copy it over but it is too long. Please promise you will not fall off your chair from laughing if you read it... it is a literal goldmine of scientific delusion.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/

RM :)

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: conradelektro on March 26, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
To TK concerning the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&index=1&feature=plcp (Electric OU: Supplement: MOSFETS... How do THEY work??):

TK, at the end of the video you are catching some oscillations (at minute 10:31). What do you want to say in relation to these oscillations? I am not getting your point (because my English is not good enough to dig insinuations and my knowledge in electronics is pretty shaky).

What do some people claim in relation to these oscillations? What are you claiming in relation to these oscillations?

(I am not criticizing, I jut want to understand.)

Greetings, Conrad
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 06:49:17 PM
@evolvingape:

Thanks for your input! I didn't remember that she had claimed 60 A-H capacity... the latest that I read, in post #666 is the quote and calculation which mentioned 25.6 million Joules in the one test against a batterypack of  5 (or was it six) 40 A-H capacity at 12 volts each, which calculation she finally retracted BUT SHE HAS NOT RETRACTED THE CONCLUSION that she had used more than the battery capacity in that one test.

@Conradelektro:

A better demo of the oscillations that we are actually working with is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY)

The circuit that the Tar Baby is modelled upon is the Rosemary Ainslie NERD circuit, which she claims produces COP INFINITY. (She was using the > symbol in there for a while !!) On the basis of this claim she is applying for at least two monetary prizes, one officially offered by this forum and another that's individually offered elsewhere.

HER circuit is claimed to 1) heat a load to useful temperatures 2) recharge the batteries while doing so and 3) run on and on and on, never depleting the batteries AT ALL, forever or until the end of time, whichever comes last, and 4) heals the lame and cures the sick. No, I'm just kidding about that number 4 part. The history of the NERD circuit is very interesting, and you will quickly  learn why I call my circuit the TAR BABY.

Even though I use the exact same... alleged.... circuit that she uses, EXCEPT for a few component substitutions, like the IRF830a instead of the magic IRFPG50 mosfet, and even though I achieve the SAME oscillations (parasitic feedback) caused by the SAME REASONS (stray inductance in the leads connecting the mosfets), and can achieve the SAME HEAT vs. time profiles in an inductive load, she affirms that my TAR BABY is not a replication of the NERD device. So that lets me off the hook totally and I can do whatever I like.

My claim about the Tar Baby is that it performs just like the NERD RAT device in all significant respects. If her device is overunity according to her calculations, since mine will produce the same data, then according to HER calculations.... well.... DO THE MATH (tm Rosemary Ainslie). Note that, in that case, since I am testing and publishing the results from MY TAR BABY..... I'll get priority in all disputes, since she released her design to "open source" yet refuses to show any tests of her own.... other than this one in this video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)

So far the traces I've shown on my Tar Baby correspond to the Blue trace (gate input) and the bottom GREEN TRACE, the mosfet common drains, shown in the above video on the Tek scope and in the screenshot -- with my reference numbers -- that I've attached below.

Please note that it has been demonstrated -- and admitted, finally, by Ainslie -- that the circuit diagram shown in the video is NOT the diagram of the device shown in the video, and there are other errors and misrepresentations in the video as well.

As far as I can determine I am using the presently accepted "correct" circuit diagram in my Tar Baby --- and I should be receiving my Magic Mosfets in a day or two, and at that point, except for the clipleads and threaded rods and white pegboard.... it will be very hard to tell any difference between the two devices. But we have her word that mine isn't a NERD, so it must be a Tar Baby. I'm even using a 10-ohm water heater element, OR.... a stack of sand resistors that come out to 50 W, 10 Ohm.

(edited a typo or too)

(Please don't be offended by the "shouting" emphasis. I'm trying to make points that might be able to penetrate someone -- not you two ! -- who seems to be extremely hard of hearing and vision. That is also the reason for the remedial EE and math posts I might make once in a while.)

(I also "claim" that the oscillations are irrelevant and are caused by stray wire inductance, and that if her device was constructed using commonly accepted layout and methods her oscillations, like mine... would go away or become very hard to obtain. If she made a few circuit changes they would be completely eliminated, her load would heat better, and she'd still not see her batteries draw down using the methods she allegedly uses.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 07:19:11 PM
Other than describing the "roots" of the Tar Baby, though... I really don't want to discuss the NERD RAT device. The time for that has passed for now... but will come again before too long. There's not much more that can be said that hasn't been covered in the last two months on her NERD thread in this forum (now locked, thanks Stefan) and also exactly a year ago on OUR, but with less noise.


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 07:42:29 PM
Let me just point out one thing about that scopeshot, though. The purple or pink trace, item 3,  is the battery voltage. Item 4 is this trace's "zero" baseline level. In item 8 you can see the amp settings for the channels, and see that the purple channel is set to 50.0 volts per major division. Looking at the scale divisions we see that the straight line of the purple trace is 1 major division plus one minor division above its baseline, for a value of about 60 volts, consistent with the DMM measurement in the video.
Now look at Item 9. This is the scope's "parameters" display where you can see what the scope's internal math is making of the traces. You can select various parameters for display here but the users have elected to display statistics like mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation here. Note that all you get for the purple trace in that box is its amplitude mean and a warning of "unstable histogram". This means that the trace is so noisy that the scope's math isn't coping with it reliably, and in fact even gets the amplitude wrong. The peaktopeak amplitude of the oscillation portion displayed can be estimated by looking at the number of minor scale ticks, representing 10 volts each, and simply counting them up.  I get about 80 v p-p for these oscillations, which again is an inductive effect caused by wire length. (Of course the mean amplitude will be decreased by smaller oscillations inside that noise, so maybe the scope is right here after all. At this sample rate it is impossible to tell.)
The battery voltage certainly isn't actually doing this. (For channel 1, the CVR, they are apparently calculating the statistics on the mean of the trace... getting a "mean of a mean" of an oscillation, more apparent nonsense).

Yet this is the data that was -- supposedly -- dumped to their spreadsheet for "analysis" that results in the conclusions they have claimed.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on March 26, 2012, 08:31:34 PM
Hi TK,

Yeah, I don't wanna talk about the NERD circuit either. I think pretty much everything that "could" be claimed, has been claimed, just depends on the "when" you look.

A suitable analogy is a Kaleidoscope hooked up to a dremel, forever. (cos its running on a RAT psu!)

I am enjoying your posts and I am learning a lot from them, so thankyou.

Once you have established the run time of the Tar Baby on 5 A/h (Amps PER hour) batteries, assuming the same C rate, the calculations can be substituted for both 40 A/h and 60 A/h to give a good indication of expected performance. Unless your Tar Baby is COP infinity of course in which case it will not matter.

RM :)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 26, 2012, 08:33:19 PM
@evolvingape: that's an interesting quote from Ainslie. So she says the capacity is 60 Amp-Hours. And she says she's delivered 12 watts, five hours per day, every working day for 18 months. I usually figure 200 working days per year, so call it 300 working days. This is the input data, according to Ainslie.

Come, let us calculate together.

12 watts is 12 Joules per second. So, to calculate the energy transferred over the time interval, we multiply the Power in Watts by the Time in seconds.  12 Joules per second  x (60 seconds per minute x 60 minutes per hour x 5 hours per day x 300 days) ==  64 800 000 Joules. Call it 65 MegaJoules. (Note well, you NERD RATS, that before any math is even done, the UNIT DIMENSIONS of the input data and the result... agree. If you would only check this in your own "work"... or even understood it.... you would avoid much error in your calculations.)

That's not an unreasonable figure at all. And it's easy to see that if one allows for her proven tendency to...er... exaggerate or be a "tad out".... it's possible that perhaps not every working day was used, and that the device may have been inoperative for some stretches of time, and that the power level wasn't always 12 Watts and so on and so forth.

Now... if we only knew the actual capacity of her battery pack, we could make some interesting comparisons and further approximations. Note that the batteries won't drop  below 12 volts until they are almost completely depleted, and it is the "over 12 volt" reading that she constantly cites as evidence that they are still "fully charged".

So, using 60 A-H as the battery capacity, what do we have? For an individual 12 volt battery, we can get 12 volts x 60 amps for one hour, or one amp for 60 hours, same thing mathematically. So 12 x 60 = 720 Watts of power, for (60 seconds per minute x 60 minutes per hour x 1 hour) or 3600 seconds. So the energy in there is 720 Joules per second x 3600 seconds == 2.6 megaJoules, about. And then she has the six batteries (or seven, now, she says), so 7 x 2.6 megaJoules = a bit over 18 megaJoules in the batteries that they can deliver at or above a "charge level" of 12 volts each.

And 64.8 divided by 18 is only 3.6.


Personally I think the conclusion is clear. Even according to her exact claimed data, she has only used less than 4 times the battery capacity in that 18 months. Since we know that the FG can recharge the batteries.... well.....

 :-\

(If we figure 10 watts at the load, 200 working days, 4 hours per day.... we get only about 29 megaJoules, less than twice the rated capacity. If we go to a three-day week, like a University class schedule, with summer and spring and holiday breaks..... we can easily get right down to the ACTUAL RATED CAPACITY of the batteries using a much more realistic test schedule than she reports. And the batteries will still test at 12 volts or above until nearly depleted, and a trickle of charge now and then from the function generator will keep them boosted above 12 volts even without actually substantially contributing to their charge state.)
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 12:01:00 AM
I picked up a 70 000 microFarad, 30 volt cap today at the surplus store. I'm not going to say how much I spent for it, it's embarrassing.

I also got a handful of H11D1 optocouplers and a bunch of sand and wirewound resistors to make loads and shunts with. I can even reproduce the 4+1 group of one-Ohm ten watt "shunts" or CVRs.

Ten Watts here? Four paralleled to give 40 Watts power handling in the CVR?  OK, fine. I guess that is just in case they do run the mosfets fully on by mistake and manage to expose the 10 ohm load to the full 72 volts along a low-resistance pathway for more than a brief pulse. But if they are averaging only 12 Watts at the load, as claimed.... they aren't running fully on, or they are on for a very short duty cycle only, or both, and don't need a 40 Watt CVR. All of that is conjecture, of course, since we have no reliable data from the NERD RATS.

I also got 5 nice ceramic tube , wirewound, 50 Ohm 12 Watt resistors, Clarostat VPR12F50 kind. I will be parallelling these to make a nice load that will fit better into my insulated Fleaker system than the water heater load does.  So I'll have a 10 ohm, 250 Watt equivalent load in there, which should be beefy enough to handle the anticipated maximum continuous current from the Tar Baby at 36 volts. Which is, neglecting the Rdss of the mosfets, by Ohm's law, I=V/R, so the current will be 3.6 amps, and by Power = I^2 x R, I get about 130 Watts dissipated by the stack at 36 volts and 3.6 amps ... so we be cool. Cooking with Hot Grease now, momma. With enough "oomph" if the mosfets do turn on to make tea or oxtail soup.

Now, if I could just find an old ox to chop the tail off of for my soup.....

ETA: Isn't anyone checking my math? OOPS..... five x 50 Ohm, 12 watt resistors gives us 10 Ohms all right, but only 60 Watts power handling capacity, not 250 like I figured above. So it's a good thing I've got them immersed in oil.... because I could exceed their power rating if I'm lucky.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on March 27, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Hi TK,

Yes it's an interesting quote.

There is the issue that there were originally 9 batteries, and no data logging on hours run on which battery under what conditions, so the number you calculated for total energy available has unknown energy input from an additional 2 batteries included in the total for the 7 batteries.

Then you have the issue of surface charge on the plates. As we all know even a completely discharged battery if left alone overnight may recover enough to show a Voltage reading above 12V across the terminals under no load. This is why when people try to start the car and the battery dies, if you leave it 10 - 15 minutes and try again sometimes it will have enough energy to turn the starter and off you go. Never trust a battery is the rule of thumb.

Then as you mentioned the function generator is run from the wall socket and is capable of providing a float charge to the battery, which would probably keep it above 12V for a very long time while under a relatively tiny load.

Then you have the issue of potential desulfation of the plates from the oscillations:

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Battery-Desulfation.htm

Voltage spikes are the method of choice for reconditioning sulfated lead plates, restoring the charge holding capacity of the battery, not normally done while running a load at the same time though. The battery can even desulfate itself from it's own power if you hook the circuit up to the terminals, and recover charge storage capacity that way. You will still have to charge the battery though for a fully charged status of 13.2V, which is calculated as 2.2V PER cell, and 6 cells PER 12V battery, which equals 2.2V MULTIPLIED BY 6 cells = 13.2V fully charged.

RM :)


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 01:29:39 AM
TK,

Regarding your proposed optocoupler setup...  That would be fine if the MOSFETS were being switched on hard.  But they are not.

Q1 may be switching on fairly hard (and only briefly as per the RA waveforms) but the Q2 "quad array" is being biased into a somewhat linear region.  I believe .99 has touched on this.  Even with the FG at  -15 volts, the Q2 drain current at DC wll be limited to 300 ma or less due to the Vdrop across Rgen.  More likely it is between 100-250 ma.  Without knowing the FG open circuit voltage versus in circuit voltage, it is difficult to know the actual bias current used.  The variability of the gate threshold voltage also presents an unknown.

For DC and at 300 ma. bias, the FG 50 ohm would dissipate 4.5 watts, the 10 ohm (?) load .9 watts and the Q2 ""array" would dissipate around 17 watts (assuming a 60 volt battery set).    The parallel pair of 100 ohm output resistors in RA's FG (as per the schematic .99 posted) may not even be 100 ohms anymore, as 4.5 watts would be a bit much for them.  Opening the FG and inspecting/measuring these resistors is in order.  Possibly, if they have increased in value, the bias current is way less than one would expect from the Rgen of 50 ohms.  If they are intact, the FG can only do just above -15 and Ibias would therefore be under 300 ma.

For AC current, the FG output is bypassed by the 12,500 pf (or more) of the total Q1 and Q2 gate to source capacitance, hence you better stick with the IRFPG50's, as all that capacitance sets the AC gain of the Q2 common gate amplifier and passes the AC current to the battery negative (via the CSR).

Picowatt

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 27, 2012, 01:39:48 AM
TK:

If you do the capacitor test then it would be worth it to measure the capacitance of your bank of capacitors.  Many people reply on capacitance and inductance meters.  I will go out on a limb and assume that 100,000 uF is to large a capacitance for a capacitance meter to measure.  What do you do???  Plus you mentioned tolerance, an almost taboo term on the free energy forums.  And the tolerance of big electrolytic caps is what, +/-10%?  Perhaps +/-20%?

So you might get some oohs and aahs if you made a clip where you measured the capacitance via the RC time constant using your best multimeter.

Then you hope your your cap-based power measurement will be in agreement with the Clarke-Hess 2330 and with the Tek scope.  Convergence!  That's another important lesson for all.  Hasn't a whole year's worth of discussion all hinged on a single measurement method that many people considered highly suspect?

You asked about the inductance of the the inductive resistor.  The off-the-shelf RAT heating element had minuscule inductance.  So small it might be too low for an inductance meter.  That's a reasonable guess, I have never played with one.  I am going to guess in the tens to hundreds of nano-Henries.  Same thing for the heating element that you bought.  I would guess that you can just take the rule of thumb for inductance per inch of wire and apply it to both of those commercial heater elements.  I forget the rule of thumb, it' something like 10 nano-Henries per inch.  In both cases it looks like the inductance in the interconnect wires would be comparable to the inductance of the heating element.

MileHigh
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 02:25:41 AM
TK,

Regarding your proposed optocoupler setup...  That would be fine if the MOSFETS were being switched on hard.  But they are not.

Q1 may be switching on fairly hard (and only briefly as per the RA waveforms) but the Q2 "quad array" is being biased into a somewhat linear region.  I believe .99 has touched on this.  Even with the FG at  -15 volts, the Q2 drain current at DC wll be limited to 300 ma or less due to the Vdrop across Rgen.  More likely it is between 100-250 ma.  Without knowing the FG open circuit voltage versus in circuit voltage, it is difficult to know the actual bias current used.  The variability of the gate threshold voltage also presents an unknown.

For DC and at 300 ma. bias, the FG 50 ohm would dissipate 4.5 watts, the 10 ohm (?) load .9 watts and the Q2 ""array" would dissipate around 17 watts (assuming a 60 volt battery set).    The parallel pair of 100 ohm output resistors in RA's FG (as per the schematic .99 posted) may not even be 100 ohms anymore, as 4.5 watts would be a bit much for them.  Opening the FG and inspecting/measuring these resistors is in order.  Possibly, if they have increased in value, the bias current is way less than one would expect from the Rgen of 50 ohms.  If they are intact, the FG can only do just above -15 and Ibias would therefore be under 300 ma.

For AC current, the FG output is bypassed by the 12,500 pf (or more) of the total Q1 and Q2 gate to source capacitance, hence you better stick with the IRFPG50's, as all that capacitance sets the AC gain of the Q2 common gate amplifier and passes the AC current to the battery negative (via the CSR).

Picowatt

Thanks for your analysis, I really appreciate it. Your knowledge appears to exceed mine somewhat in these matters, so I'll just say that your estimates of maximum drain current attainable agree with my measurements. In fact without really cranking up the output of my F43 FG, which is capable of 40 V p-p into 50 ohms, I mostly stay under 200 mA as long as I am using a strict negative going pulse so that only the Q2 "gang of four" is active. However, I can operate my circuit in a mode, by varying offset on the FG, so that both mosfet sets turn on, and the oscillations can be seen on both phases of the signal, and the current can go up to 3 amps or more, mostly going through Q1 I think, from comparing temperatures. I'm not properly heatsunk so I only operate at those levels briefly, but now that I have the better load setup with the wirewound resistors, giving more inductance than the water heater element, I'll be pushing it a bit more.

I don't think I'm willing to buy an Instek FG of the same model as theirs. They cost about 220 bucks and I'm not rich. Besides.... I feel that the Interstate F43 is doing just fine, so far. It's an oldie but a goodie, and I keep it in good condition. Still.... the Instek is available locally if I do need to get one.

I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning as to why I should stick to the PG50. Are you saying that the PG50 may be necessary for some kind of battery charging from the FG to occur, and it might not if I use the 830a? Anyway, I'll be switching to the PG50 as soon as they arrive, and I'll be doing side-by-side comparisons like I did those many moons ago with the 2sk1548 in her COP>17 circuit.

The damn RF from the thing messes with both my little digital thermometers... I've had to start using an old analog bimetal type to get a reliable reading, with loss of precision and accuracy.

And of course, since I'm exploring these other modes as well, I'll try the optocouplers anyway. As long as I don't kill the oscillations....
because without oscillations there is no way that certain people will think I'm really doing what I'm doing, really.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 03:17:17 AM
TK,

Why would you want any FG other than that beautiful Interstate.  I'd love to have it.  40volts into 50R!!  Nice...

How on earth are you switching on both Q1 and Q2 at the same time?  To turn on, Q1 needs the FG to go positive, Q2 needs the FG to go negative.  I can't get my picobrain around that...  Does that Interstate also perform magic? (if so, it's the perfect FG for the current task)

The RA circuit appears to only switch Q1 on very briefly followed by a several second duration wherein Q2 is biased on.

Reasons for staying with the IRFPG50:

1.  The much larger Ciss allows more AC current to pass when Q2 oscillates (Q2 is the "array", it is labeled as both Q1 and Q2 depending on which "paper" you read, I'll stick with Q2).  Draw in the Ciss (gate to source capacitances) and you will see that the Q1 and Q2 combined Ciss of 12,500pf or more is the AC path for current when Q2 is oscillating at HF (as well as the FG's 50R).

2.  The larger Ciss allows Q2 to have more AC gain

3.  I thought you were going to attempt a replication

Think about tacking a wire onto your Interstate prior to its 50R output resistor so you can measure across the 50R to get bias current, and, prove that current can indeed pass through an FG.....  Though I don't think much battery charging is going on...

PW

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 03:43:17 AM
TK,

Reasons for staying with the IRFPG50:

4.  They're magical??

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 27, 2012, 04:42:40 AM
TK:

About the often repeated story about "18 months of continuous use."  I posted once before that all of this is purely anecdotal "evidence" and Rosemary should never have even stated it.  Then you have to ask yourself about what really happened and human nature.  Do you really think that every single day the students (or whomever) would say, "Time to set up the RAT circuit and stare at it again!"  What new insights could be learned by doing the same thing every day for months on end?  It just doesn't add up at all.  I would guess that the circuit was set up and running when Rosie was around and after the novelty wore off it collected dust when Rosie wasn't around.  I don't get the impression that she was there every day for 18 months.

It's all junk anecdotal data not even worth discussing.  I figure that she had somewhere between 10 and 20 megajoules to start with in her battery set, and when you average it out over 18 long months, the setup might have been on 10 to 15 hours per month.  Also, she has no idea whatsoever what the power consumption of the setup was because she measured "energy being returned to the batteries while the setup ran."  Without bothering to crunch the numbers, perhaps she burned off 5 or 6 megajoules during her testing.   And of course, we can't forget that it makes absolutely no sense to talk about draw-down test if you believe that the batteries are always recharging, none!

Moving on to more interesting stuff, Picowatt made a lot of interesting comments and really appears to know his stuff indeed.  I plumb forgot about an AC path at high frequency having less impedance back to the battery ground via the CSR as compared to the the path through 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator.  That may have saved Rosie's function generator resistor from burning out.  So indeed there are two paths for the power to return to ground, a mainly DC path through the function generator and an AC path through the various capacitances in the MOSFET array through the 0.25 ohm CSR.

It's a bit complicated and I acknowledge that when I talked about the "fake" voltage measured across the CSR possibly being from capacitive-inductive coupling, I honestly wasn't thinking about the capacitive coupling through the various MOSFET gate-source-drain AC paths  (I plumb forgot - a dumb mistake).  So there is very likely some real AC power flow there with real current, and not just a "fake induced tingle voltage" with no associated current.

I read somewhere that the various capacitances inside a MOSFET structure are also a function of bias voltage.  The width of the gate channels change as the voltage changes.  (I am outside the envelope of my direct experience here and can't even remember the proper terminology).  However, putting that aside for a second, let me mention a test that may help you get a feel for this.

You could try to use a second signal generator and a inject high-frequency sine wave into the common MOSFET drain node.  As you sweep the sine wave higher and higher in frequency, observe what's happening at the CSR.  I think Picowatt is dead-on and above a certain frequency you should see a very strong sine wave at the CSR.  Call it an "anecdotal" or "get a feel for it" experiment.

Anyways, don't let too many cooks spoil your soup and your fun.  The good news is that you can measure the AC power across the CSR and that is just one component of the "power pie."  As long as you know the total power the circuit is consuming, then the fun can be finding and measuring (or inferring) what all of the "power slices" are.  Picowatt astutely reminded us that some of those power slices are of the AC-only variety.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 04:51:26 AM
@picowatt:

I'd like to use the 830a for several reasons. First, I can get them for $1.30 each locally, and the PG50 costs about 5 times as much. Second, I think it would really be nice if the 830a turned out to work "just like" the PG50 in TarBaby. But of course I'll be using the PG50s when they finally arrive.

The optoisolators work too well. They cause the mosfet(s) to switch cleanly and more precisely, if with a bit of slow turn-on. This allows a lot more power to get to the load; in oscillation mode my inline DMM reads about 170 -200 mA, but when I use the optoisolators and get a clean turnon on the drain signal the current goes up to 1.8 or 2.0 amps or more, and the load heats like crazy. This also happens when "tuning", trying to get the oscillations to appear, when a clean turnon is achieved. I am formulating a theory about the chain of events during a typical NERD test session, if there is such a thing.

Right now I'm powering the optoisolator output side with a 9v battery; the only connection to the DUT is by the gate drive leads coming off the isolator collectors. I'm using an LED and its resistor as a "pulldown" for the optoisolator's phototransistor stage, so I can also monitor the pulses visually when they are slow enough. Very nice switching. Next will be to hook up the optoisolator's power needs to the main board battery supply, to see if the oscillations will return.

The only time Q1 and Q2 are both on at the same time is when I really crank the FG's output to some stressful amplitudes and offsets. I can get them both to saturate and stay on and that lets 3 or 4 amps thru to the load. Or if I use a symmetrical pulse positive and negative, at very fast frequencies there is "shoot thru" when both are briefly on during the zerocrossing of the gate signal. But when I mentioned it earlier, I meant both could be turned on, but alternately, with a symmetrical gate drive signal. I think. It is also possible to get the oscillations in both phases of the drain signal and I think both sets of transistors are partially on during this time.

If I can't reliably get the oscillations with the FG isolated like this, then I'll have to look for some other control condition that will allow me to compare _with_ function generator current path and _without_ FG current path.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 27, 2012, 04:58:37 AM
TK:

I did my last edit in the previous post I swear.  There is a code freeze on that posting.

I just wanted to say congrats on the big fat capacitor.  It can always be used as a low-pass filter in conjunction with your batteries to make a rock rock steady power consumption measurement for the entire circuit also.  In that case of course you lose the "purity" of powering of the circuit by a set of batteries and it is instead powered by the batteries transferring current into the capacitor first.  So in theory the circuit is being powered by the big fat capacitor.  You will still see the identical magic oscillations though.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 05:05:16 AM
Oh, I want to make sure that it's clear that I'm not monitoring the CVR quantitatively yet; the current values I'm giving lately are just the rough figures from the cheapo DMM inline with the battery.

It's nice to have more than two channels sometimes. Sigh.

@MH:
It's late and I don't think I'm up for much more tonight. I'm going to have to think about this AC issue a bit more. Would one expect a LED to light up in both polarity orientations, if inserted where the CVR is? Or a back-to-back LED pair?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 27, 2012, 05:16:12 AM
TK:

Go "dodo" and get a good rest.

For the LEDs, you want to try putting a back-to-back pair in series with the CSR.  When you get the oscillations, both LEDs should light up.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 05:22:18 AM
TK,

Using the opto's would allow full turn on, and indeed slower turn off, so I can see how they could overlap, but, that deviates from the RA circuit operation.

Are you using the similarly short Q1 on time/very long Q2 biased on time?

Your alternate FET's should work, but for duplicating as close as possible the waveforms and Fosc of the RA circuit, the PG50 would be a closer replication.  You should be able to swap them out with the 830's but the lower capacitances of those devices will flavor the results slightly.

If RA knew what the open circuit votage of the FG was during a test deemed "successful", (i.e., Q2's bias current) an appropriate battey supply equal to the FG open circuit voltage in series with a 50R replacing the FG would have performed similarly (as far as Q2 is concerned).  Of course, the new bias battery would discharge at a rate equal to the bias current and possibly from any assymetrical AC not fully bypassed by the Ciss of Q1/Q2 (though if assymetrical the correct way, possibly the new bias battery would get a slight boost now and again).

I haven't heard if .99 is going to finish his duplication or not, it would be interesting if the two of you could do similar reps and acheive similar measurement results.  But hey, its a lot of time and expense.  More power to both of you.

To infinity and beyond.........

PW


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 05:59:35 AM
Blah... I made a "tad bit" of a math error earlier. My new load resistor stack of 5 x 50 Ohm 12 Watt resistors in parallel is of course a 10 ohm (measured at 10.3 ohms on the Simpson) resistor capable of handling 60 Watts, not the 250 I somehow came up with earlier. It's immersed in mineral oil though, so hopefully it will be OK.

But I caught the error first.....  or at least you lot are too polite to razz me about it.....   :o

Anyhow, yes, and good night.

I'm uploading a video describing the optocoupler test so far, but it will be an hour before it's ready, probably.

The waveforms that Ainslie showed are symmetrical, 50 percent duty cycle square waveforms, with the gate drive signal going from 0 down to -5 volts or so. I don't know quite what you mean, PW, about "the similarly short Q1 on time/very long Q2 biased on time". 
With only two channels on my scope I'm really only guessing, based on heating, which mosfets are on when. If I see high currents and the drain signal staying low without sign of pulsing, then I think that at least one mosfet is staying totally on. If I see the oscillations and partial drawdown in "both" phases of the drain signal, then I think that all the mosfets are at least partially turning on, Q1 and Q2 alternating. But I don't have the precision with this kit to be able easily to draw out a full timing diagram for the switching...yet. I have a Tek DPSO at the lab that I'll torture with the Tar Baby later this week and that will tell me a lot... a lot that you lot probably already know.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 06:45:56 AM
Musings engendered by me watching my latest video...

So you come into the lab and get set up. You still don't understand the reason for the oscillations but you know if you "tune" long enough they will eventually appear and if you don't touch anything they will stay.
So the load is in the water in the insulated teapot. You log the temperature. You turn on everything and begin tuning. As you tune for the oscillations, you will be going through periods of mosfets totally off with drain trace HIGH, periods of clean switching with drain trace in phase with gate signal from fully ON to fully OFF without oscillations, and periods of mosfet(s) constantly fully on, with drain trace at baseline and no sign of switching even though the gate signal indicates normally.
Then, suddenly, the oscillations appear. You cream your jeans, then you look over at the load temperature. It is amazingly high, like 80 degrees when ambient was 16. You log this, and back off to watch. Hmm.... the oscillations continue, with the drain trace oscillating around the _HIGH_ level as is normal for these oscs. The CVR trace indicates whatever weirdnesses. This is the data you log. Meanwhile, the temperature continues stable, no further rise. So you... retune,change freqs or something. First you lose the oscs, you fiddle around, there are periods of clean switching and  continuous on. Then you reestablish the oscillations and notice that the temp is much higher now, maybe even boiling. Whoopee, the magic oscillations are doing their thing!!

But what you don't realize is that the heating happened during the TUNING, when periods of high current flowed from the battery to the load, and this data wasn't recorded, since you didn't have oscillations and your circuit isn't operating in the magic mode. The load warmed up while you were tuning, and the slight power transfer during the magic oscillations is enough to _overcome the insulation leakage_ and keep the load from cooling off.

Retune, lather rinse repeat. And you've fooled yourself into thinking that the oscillations contribute to the heating of the load, when the major part of the work was actually done during the unmonitored and unanalyzed tuning stage.

It's just a musing, just a guess, a conjecture.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on March 27, 2012, 11:29:37 AM
snip..
The optoisolators work too well. They cause the mosfet(s) to switch cleanly and more precisely, if with a bit of slow turn-on.
 ...snip..

 LOL - Damn those pesky things doing what they're designed to do, and doing it so well !!.
 
 Cheers
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 01:54:27 PM
TK,

It is difficult to know which circuit/claim to test from all the ambiguities and versions.

Regarding the duty cycle I mentioned, I was indeed incorrect with regard to "seconds".

In an RA paper, RA states that "the offset of FG was set to its extremel negative limit".   Also, "the duty cycle is also set to the limit of the FG's shortest on time within each switching period of 2.7 minutes".  (Additional data like FG hi/lo open circuit voltage swing, duty cycle in absolutes, etc are not provided)

I believe this is the setup that RA and .99 were discussing regarding a test of COP=infinity and the scope shots I have seen discuused regarding same.  I could, however, be wrong, as there is a lot of "noise" out there.  Q1 is basically a small player (its Ciss does add to the AC current path during Q2 oscillations) and the Q2 array could have been just as easily biased on with a PWR supply through 50R.

I do not know the "minimum" ON time of RA's FG, but from her paper and at a 10% "on" time, that would be 16.2 seconds of Q1 "on" time alternated with and followed by 145.8 seconds of Q2 biased on time, ad infinitum.

Setting your FG to a long period and minimum duty cycle, output set to -15 volts open circuit during its lo period, and who knows what during the hi period (+5??) would likely produce similar results.  Depending on RA's FG "hi" period voltage setting, Q1 may have never been turning on.  RA states that no current flow was measured during the FG hi period, so possibly the FG output during that time was below the Q1 gate threshold voltage.

MH is correct about the variability of MOSFET capacitances with voltage, that complicates analysis/prediction a bit...  As per some of the RA statements, the FG's offset/level was used to tweak the oscillation/power level.  This would affect both the DC bias setting and vary capacitances a bit a well

At a DC bias setting below 300 ma, the pwr dissipated in the load resistor is minimal at DC, so I suspect the bulk of any greater power dissipated at the load would have been via AC curents from the oscillation.

Ever work on a 60-70's audio amp with a load connected and a dreaded AC oscillation screaming away?  Things get very hot very fast (until one of the outputs hang and then "poof").  Ah... the early days of discrete, those were the days...

PW





 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 02:55:13 PM
I'm starting to get confused here. The Ainslie demonstration video shows their function generator set to produce a symmetrical square wave, negative going only, with a frequency of 10 Hz. This is confirmed by the shot of the Instek's panel, showing the figure "10" and some change and by the timebase of the scope shot (13) which is set to 40 ms/div, and the period of the FG's pulses is twelve minor divisions or 100 ms, as confirmed by the cursors (21, 20, 17). They claim in the video that this setting produces heating and battery recharging.  Where did these LONG periods come from that PW is referring to? 

I would much prefer to operate with the same parameters that they have actually _shown_. We know that their reports are unreliable, but scope traces do not lie. They may misdirect and provide cumulus-cloud-like material for projected imaginings, be rife with artefact and irrelevancies... but they do not lie. We know that much of what is "reported" by the NERD RATS is tainted in one way or another, by misobservation, improper interpretation of instrument indications, bad "calculation", math errors, anecdote and post hockery. This is why I tend to disregard everything (especially their "explanations") except what bits of raw reproducible data that can be gleaned from the dross.

Of course I _can_ operate at such weird duty cycles and long periods.... it's just a hassle with this analog scope I have here. And I don't want to generate miles of chart recorder paper like I did with Steorn's eOrbo farce.

Here, once again, is the scope shot from their demonstration, showing what they claim to be a fully operating NERD RAT device in oscillating, battery-recharging, load-heating mode.

Or will they  now claim that this does NOT show an operating NERD device.... ??

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 03:09:18 PM
TK,

The referenced RA paper is at the following:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 03:15:48 PM

 LOL - Damn those pesky things doing what they're designed to do, and doing it so well !!.
 
 Cheers

 8)
I actually was able to get some oscillations while using the optoisolators. They are less consistent and make a more interesting (to me) pattern than the constant squeal of the certified Ainslie NERD oscillations, and are harder to "tune". I think that if I can figure out how to get the opto power and ground return from the main battery supply, this might help to reestablish the genuine NERD feedback. Also, of course the PG50s may behave differently.

Two scope shots showing the oscillations obtained _with_ the opto isolators:


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 03:17:14 PM
TK,

The referenced RA paper is at the following:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766)

PW

Thank you, I have the paper in my files and I have read it several times. This "paper" is the one that was summarily rejected five times by the IEEE journals they submitted it to, isn't it? Am I going to have to read that word salad yet again? They even list an incorrect make and model for their FG in that paper.

And isn't the Instek FG that they used, one of these? Note the frequency range of the units.

http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html (http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html)

.99 pointed this out to Rosemary early on during the present incarnation of the zombie tarbaby.:

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454)

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310470/#msg310470 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310470/#msg310470) ( with comparison photos)

The FG used by the NERD RATS  in the video demostration is an Instek GFG8216A, with a minimum frequency of 0.3 Hz (or 0.1 Hz depending on where you look) according to its manual and data sheet. How then was it used to make the very slow frequencies that they have claimed? I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on some real evidence that these long cycles were achieved, if  I am to make some special effort to operate in that regime. Meanwhile, the evidence that we do have indicates they used a 50 percent duty cycle at 10 Hz.

An internet search for "iso-tech 324 function generator" or "isotech 324 function generator" returns mostly hits for the INSTEK 8216A. I have not been able to find any discrete listing for a "iso-tech" or "isotech" 342 function generator.  I'd love to see the data sheet for that unit.

http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html#tab4 (http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html#tab4)
Note the lowest frequency settings of these Iso-tech function generators. No model "324" is listed. Maybe it's obsolete... but I can't find one listed on the surplus/used market either.

It also looks to me like the front panel of the INSTEK unit is telling us that the "shield" or outer conductor of the FG's output terminals is grounded, not floating.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 04:04:33 PM
TK,

As to the rejection, well, I'll leave that alone...  the point is, which waveform to use.

The one you describe in your posted scope shot is very similar, only the duty cycle/period is different.  Does the hi level of the gate drive signal on the scope shot you posted exceed the zero line?  If not, then Q2 is just being alternately turned off and biased on by the FG as its waveform toggles and Q1 is not being utilized in any active way, except for its intrinsic capacitances and body diode.

Your optocoplers are hard switching the gates, which is not the same as the bias being used on the RA common gate amplifier circuit to just barely turn on Q2 for somewhat linear operation.  Q2 is configured as an amplifier, not a switch.  There are other ways to bias Q2 into a similar region besides applying a negative voltage to its source via a resistor, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change. 

I suggest an FG setting at a convenient to scope period with an open circuit excursion between -15 and zero volts, unless more data is available regarding the FG max positive swing voltage.  I believe your Interstate can be set to place the complete waveform at the zero volts level and below (I believe that's what I saw in one of your videos).  In that setting, amplitude can be used to set the negative swing value instead of using the offset control (very cool FG).  Just keep in mind that you only want to bias Q2 on slightly, 100-250ma., and not fully turn it on.  Also, keep in mind that there will be a lot of dissiation in Q2 when biased that way...  proper heat needed.

Hard switching Q2 would definitely be more efficient regarding less loss in Q2 and more power at the load, but the "magic" is supposed to be in the oscillations.  Hard switching the MOSFETS and using a lower Rdson MOSFET would eliminate the need for a heat sink, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.

PW



 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 04:36:44 PM
TK,

As to the rejection, well, I'll leave that alone...  the point is, which waveform to use.

The one you describe in your posted scope shot is very similar, only the duty cycle/period is different.  Does the hi level of the gate drive signal on the scope shot you posted exceed the zero line?  If not, then Q2 is just being alternately turned off and biased on by the FG as its waveform toggles and Q1 is not being utilized in any active way, except for its intrinsic capacitances and body diode.

Your optocoplers are hard switching the gates, which is not the same as the bias being used on the RA common gate amplifier circuit to just barely turn on Q2 for somewhat linear operation.  Q2 is configured as an amplifier, not a switch.  There are other ways to bias Q2 into a similar region besides applying a negative voltage to its source via a resistor, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change. 

I suggest an FG setting at a convenient to scope period with an open circuit excursion between -15 and zero volts, unless more data is available regarding the FG max positive swing voltage.  I believe your Interstate can be set to place the complete waveform at the zero volts level and below (I believe that's what I saw in one of your videos).  In that setting, amplitude can be used to set the negative swing value instead of using the offset control (very cool FG).  Just keep in mind that you only want to bias Q2 on slightly, 100-250ma., and not fully turn it on.  Also, keep in mind that there will be a lot of dissiation in Q2 when biased that way...  proper heat needed.

Hard switching Q2 would definitely be more efficient regarding less loss in Q2 and more power at the load, but the "magic" is supposed to be in the oscillations.  Hard switching the MOSFETS and using a lower Rdson MOSFET would eliminate the need for a heat sink, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.

PW

Now I am beginning to think you either haven't watched all the videos or I am not explaining things very well. Using my FG to produce a strict negative-going pulse train, from 0 Volts to minus whatever, adjusted by varying the _amplitude_ control not the offset, I am making oscillations just as you say. When I turn the amplitude up from "idle" (which is a minimal voltage swing from about 0 to -0.5 volts) to "operating" you can see the mosfets turn on, and when the FG is directly connected not using the optoisolators the oscillations commence immediately when the signal is high enough for any response. I can put the amplitude all the way up (max negative excursion) but since there is a low impedance to the FG's output in the circuit, the voltage doesn't go way up, but the oscillations persist throughout the range of the FG's setting as long as the amplitude is enough to "tickle" the Q2 gates. In other words, I am operating just as you suggest in your second-to-last paragraph, as far as I can tell.

The purpose of the optoisolator trial is to try to figure out some way to operate the system without the FG's current path, while including the oscillations, since those are the only "magic" part of the behaviour of the NERD circuit (except how to get a 2 minute wave period from a FG that has a minimum frequency of 0.3 Hz). I don't think that the FG's path is absolutely required for feedback oscillations to happen; humbugger's excellent sims from last year showed that all you really have to do is "poke" the thing with a single short pulse and it will oscillate until the cows come home or the oxtail soup is done.

If it turns out that the FG's current path MUST be in the system, acting as a power source,  for the _claimed_ Ainslie battery charging effect to occur....   what does that tell us?

18 months of continuous testing every working day for 18 months as she claimed (12 Watts dissipated in the load) could have only used less than 4 times her total battery capacity anyway...... even if she really did dissipate 12 Watts continuously for 5 hours per day for 300 days.

So I think that you are trying to hold me to some standard that the Ainslie team certainly hasn't met themselves. You want me to reproduce a claimed frequency and pulse duty cycle that is clearly not within the range of the equipment they say they used.

(Although it IS within the capability of my Interstate F43, which can go down to... let's see.... 0.004 Hz x 10 on the knobs for 0.04 Hz, then use the .01f setting, we get 0.0004 Hz. What is that in period, I wonder? 0.0004 cycles PER one second == ? seconds per cycle, so we invert and divide, to obtain a period of 2500 seconds... can that be right?)

Right now, based on the heating and other behaviours of the Tar Baby, I can say this: operating the TAR BABY in full oscillation mode where I reproduce the gate and drain traces that Ainslie has _actually_ shown, not just talked about... there is very little power in the load and it doesn't warm up much. However, during "tuning" one encounters states where the mosfet(s) are cleanly switching AND states where the mosfet(s) are fully 100 percent of the time ON, and the load is exposed to the full voltage of the battery pack through a low-resistance pathway... hence it draws several amps of real current and heats up quite well.

It would be very surprising to me to find that a "real" NERD RAT device would behave differently, even with the magic mosfets and the magic signal generator. 
ETA: Also, the "efficiency" of the circuit as a heater is in question. When the circuit is operating in "oscillating" mode, how much of the power from the battery will be dissipated in the mosfet(s) and how much in the load? When the circuit is switched cleanly or is in "constant on" mode, how much of the power from the battery in _that_ case is dissipated in the mosfet(s) and how much in the load? This is a separate issue from the battery recharging issue... for which there is no _real_ evidence EVEN IN THE NERD RAT DATA as .99 and humbugger have extensively shown in their analyses.

I hope you don't mind, .99, if I attach your report here... maybe PicoWatt hasn't seen it.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 27, 2012, 04:55:52 PM
Your alternate FET's should work, but for duplicating as close as possible the waveforms and Fosc of the RA circuit, the PG50 would be a closer replication.  You should be able to swap them out with the 830's but the lower capacitances of those devices will flavor the results slightly.

careful... i tried telling tinsel-lokin the same thing years back... they all jumped on me and called me a troll. accused me of strawman. or maybe it was because i used the same tone with tinsel as he uses with others that got him so upset...
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 05:08:33 PM
careful... i tried telling tinsel-lokin the same thing years back... they all jumped on me and called me a troll. accused me of strawman. or maybe it was because i used the same tone with tinsel as he uses with others that got him so upset...

Ahh... I've been waiting for you to show up. I knew you would. This will be my last response to you and it consists of one question:

When will you show your Ainslie circuit replication charging up its batteries and boiling water?

Please don't return until you can answer my polite question above.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310476/#msg310476 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310476/#msg310476)

For the readers who may be interested, Wilby is referring to my prior work on Ains-lie's previous claim, the Quantum circuit and the claim of COP>17, with yet a Different circuit than is being examined here. For a short while, while my IRFPG50 mosfets were on order, I posted results from a 2sk1548 mosfet, and I stated that I would be surprised to find a significant difference between the two. Later when I actually DID have a PG50 for testing, I mounted the two transistors side-by-side on a huge triple-pole double throw slide switch so that I could switch them back and forth _live in the powered circuit_ for comparison purposes. I discovered that the 2sk1548 worked BETTER than the IRFPG50 in producing the high-voltage inductive spikes that Ainslie then was claiming were responsible for her alleged battery charging. I posted a note saying that I WAS surprised to find this difference..... but since I found no "overunity" behaviour from either mosfet, I didn't think it was a "significant" difference in the context. And I was right then and I am still right, but Wilby can't find anything else objectionable in my work so he's been stuck on that same single issue for YEARS.
(In that work I was the first to: identify the inverted duty cycle problem with her timer; show that using her timer AS PUBLISHED one could reproduce the time-temperature profiles she posted; boil water with the heat in the load; siphon off the "spike" using a fast diode and charge an external capacitor to hundreds of volts, running NE-2s and so forth on a 24 volt battery input; charge EXTERNAL batteries with a "fluffy charge", and many other of the reported effects of that circuit. And my batteries still measured 24 volts !! Lol. All this is documented and published in many videos on my YT channel. And all of it using BOTH the 1548 and the pg50 for comparison purposes.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 27, 2012, 05:15:59 PM
of course i would. i told you i'll be there a long time ago didn't i? don't you see tinselkoala/alsetalokin... my righteous indignation at what you did to me, what you implied and what you lied about is directly proportional to your self righteous indignation at rosemary for what you accuse her of.

i wouldn't even consider it until you offer up that mea culpa you owe me from our last go 'round... you remember... the go 'round where i told you the same thing picowatt did about substituting whatever you have on hand and expecting it to be a "replication". and recall what happened when you did actually get around to SCIENTIFICALLY testing the difference between the two transistors. you found they didn't behave the same... and recall where you cursed and ran away and said you were "done".  you remember don't you? i do...

furthermore, i wasn't talking to you. i was talking to pico. so unless you have that mea culpa ready. don't speak to me.

for the readers that are interested: the record of what was said, which tinselkoala/alsetalokin doesn't want you to have the link to is here.  http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg197621/#msg197621

Quote from: utilitarian on August 16, 2009, 09:59:44 PM
Quote
Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?

that wasn't the conclusion being posited by tk. he had concluded (apparently before he started his hack of a 'replication') it was perfectly ok to substitute a mosfet based on data sheets. i called him on it. he didn't actually voice this conclusion until page 2.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 08:13:03 AM
Quote
OK, several points to address.
    First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.

he then made an asinine hypothesis (see below for how that turned out) about the irfpg50 performance, never once specifying 'over unity performance'. i called him on it. he then asked if i could show how it would perform any different on page 11.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 08:28:24 PM
Quote
The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.

    Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

    If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

    If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


    (EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)

please take note of these words...
My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet.  Hers cannot be corrected so easily.
here he is referring to his claim of no difference in mosfet performance, let alone OU, and her claim of over unity which he was calling erroneous due to the duty cycle issue.
and these words...
significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used.
note no mention of over unity performance, just performance. why oh why do i have to hammer this in? oh yeah, the slow ones... and the liar.
they (tk and his merry band of sycophants) all jabbered for a while pretending how smart they are and then, asymatrix quantified it once again as being non relative to over unity performance by saying this on page 24.

Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 12:12:43 AM
Quote
Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.

tk did not amend this to being specifically relative to OU performance. while they (tk and his merry band of sycophants again) continued to jabber about how smart they are and how little i know, etc. i waited for him to get around to actually testing this experimentally. when he finally did, on page 42 i might add. he found this out.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 06:50:12 PM
Quote
The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
    The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
    I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.

    So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

take note of these words...
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that.

he did however, try to claim he 'meant' over unity performance later. much later. page 108 actually.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 07:07:38 AM
Quote
"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.
i called him on that too.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 05:47:25 PM
TK,

I am not trying to hold you to "any" standard.  I merely thought replicating the circuit first and then modifying it would be a logical way to go.  I meant no disrespect at all.  And no, I have not watched all your videos, I'll try to find the time to catch up.

By applying the DC bias to the gate, the AC parameters change a bit.  Also, do you have a 50R or any resistor other than the CSR in the Q2 source leg to the batt negative?  Q2 will self-regulate its current based on the source resistor value used , the positive voltage applied to the gate (or negative voltage applied via the (50R) source resistor) and its threshold voltage (which varies with temp).

As I said, I doubt Q1 is being turned on at all.  One could possibly place a 50R in the Q2 source leg to the CSR and apply 12 volts to the Q2 gate via a 100K to 1meg resistor connected to the first 12 volt battery tap up from ground.  That will set the DC bias about right for Q2, but now the first battery is providing I bias as well as I load.  Also, the drain of Q2 would now have 12 volts less swing (headroom) available.  And again, AC conditions change a bit as the internal resistance and strays from the batt would now be in the DC and AC loop and I load will be inducing ripple in what would now be the bias source.  The large gate resistor value will, in concert with Ciss, decouple the I load ripple somewhat, but in the end, it sounds like it would be another oscillator to me.... again, just a different flavor.   

One could use a separate 12 volt battery and a 50R to apply the negative voltage to the Q2 source instead of the FG, but then the bias battery will eventually die.  Properly sized, it would allow the main batts to be tested for a proper rundown test to see if the batts do indeed "recharge" or "maintain charge" during oscillation.  Assuming a fair degree of feedback in the FG output amplifier, the AC impedance of the FG output stage is probably quite low, relative to the Rgen of 50R.  Placing a cap across the new bias battery would reduce the batt's AC impedance to closer simulate the FG.

As far as the FG recharging the batteries in the RA circuit, I don't see how that is possible.  Adding another battery in series with a 50R in its place will not charge the higher voltage batt bank either.  As to the current state of the RA batteries, based on her observed swings to zero volts, I suspect their internal impedance is quite high at this time.  Even without a load applied at all, they would have seen 18 months of self-discharge and subsequent loss of capacity (increased internal resistance).  The batt's open circuit voltage could still measure just fine.  It would be interesting to just hang a 10R across the batts and measure the drop in the battery voltage to determine their internal resistance.

Again, no disrepect intended... it's all good... 

More coffee and then back to work for me...


PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 27, 2012, 06:02:45 PM
Thank you, I have the paper in my files and I have read it several times. This "paper" is the one that was summarily rejected five times by the IEEE journals they submitted it to, isn't it?

Hi TK,

Actually the paper that was rejected five times in various versions was this one .....

Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems
R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch

( 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf )

For the record ....

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 06:10:18 PM
Wilby,

Wow, you guys really need to bury the hatchet... life is too short.

You do have to give TK credit for being one of the first, if not the first, to identify the inverted duty cycle issue in the COP=17 circuit.  And, oddly, how that inversion, if the calculations are also inverted, produced a similar COP result.

But yes, I would typically replicate first and then modify second.  I am asked to improve on designs all the time, and I always start with what the customer is currently using to make baseline measurements to improve upon.

PW



Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 06:21:48 PM
TK,

I am not trying to hold you to "any" standard.  I merely thought replicating the circuit first and then modifying it would be a logical way to go.  I meant no disrespect at all.  And no, I have not watched all your videos, I'll try to find the time to catch up.
No problem, I know you mean nothing more than to have an honest vigorous and constructive discussion. And you clearly have a better understanding of these matters than I do. I'm a psychologist, after all, not an EE.
Would you rather that I wait until I have all of the exact components in the lab before I begin work at all-- and where do we draw the line? I mean, if I had started with the PG50 and pegboard and clipleads all over the place, and obtained oscs immediately.... would we have learned as much as we know now? I don't think so.
My style, as you might have perceived, is not to attempt to PROVE anything. On the other hand, if I can't DISPROVE something....  see what I mean? I am applying the scientific method, and you can rest assured that I WILL reproduce the exact circuit down to the pegboard and clipleads, Instek and "aluminium heatsinks" and all, if that is what is _truly_ needed to examine the NERD RAT claims for accuracy and truth.
And there's really  no need to watch "all" of my videos... there are only about a dozen in the present Ainslie series and 40 or so in the previous 2009 work, out of nearly 200 videos of my scientific tinkering that I've uploaded.
Quote
By applying the DC bias to the gate, the AC parameters change a bit.  Also, do you have a 50R or any resistor other than the CSR in the Q2 source leg to the batt negative?  Q2 will self-regulate its current based on the source resistor value used , the positive voltage applied to the gate (or negative voltage applied via the (50R) source resistor) and its threshold voltage (which varies with temp).
I am using the exact circuit attached below, except that I am not yet monitoring across the CVR, I am using 0.1 ohms 5W "sand" resistor as the CVR, and I am using the 830a mosfet, as I still only have one PG50... which by the way oscillates fine in the "single mosfet" version of this circuit which is diagrammed-- but not shown--  in the Ainslie video demonstration.
Quote

As I said, I doubt Q1 is being turned on at all.  One could possibly place a 50R in the Q2 source leg to the CSR and apply 12 volts to the Q2 gate via a 100K to 1meg resistor connected to the first 12 volt battery tap up from ground.  That will set the DC bias about right for Q2, but now the first battery is providing I bias as well as I load.  Also, the drain of Q2 would now have 12 volts less swing (headroom) available.  And again, AC conditions change a bit as the internal resistance and strays from the batt would now be in the DC and AC loop and I load will be inducing ripple in what would now be the bias source.  The large gate resistor value will, in concert with Ciss, decouple the I load ripple somewhat, but in the end, it sounds like it would be another oscillator to me.... again, just a different flavor.   

I'm fairly sure I can get both Q1 and Q2 mosfets to turn on depending on the FG's settings. Usually alternately, occasionally simultaneously, mostly just one set during the negative gate drive mode. At least all the heatsinks can get warm ! I did manage to blow just two of the "gang of four" during an overheat event, and the single Q1 hs was quite hot at that time too.
Quote
One could use a separate 12 volt battery and a 50R to apply the negative voltage to the Q2 source instead of the FG, but then the bias battery will eventually die.  Properly sized, it would allow the main batts to be tested for a proper rundown test to see if the batts do indeed "recharge" or "maintain charge" during oscillation.  Assuming a fair degree of feedback in the FG output amplifier, the AC impedance of the FG output stage is probably quite low, relative to the Rgen of 50R.  Placing a cap across the new bias battery would reduce the batt's AC impedance to closer simulate the FG.
A real problem here is that test results should be unambiguous enough and with transparent enough methodology that the "main suspects" can't hand-wave their way out of the conclusions, as they have so many times in the past. I've even, in the very first setup of this circuit that I did using 2n7000 mosfets--nice oscs there btw, see the video-- I coupled the FG to the circuit using a series cap--- which passed the gate signal fine, switched the mosfets "normally"... but killed the oscs completely.
Quote


As far as the FG recharging the batteries in the RA circuit, I don't see how that is possible.  Adding another battery in series with a 50R in its place will not charge the higher voltage batt bank either.  As to the current state of the RA batteries, based on her observed swings to zero volts, I suspect their internal impedance is quite high at this time.  Even without a load applied at all, they would have seen 18 months of self-discharge and subsequent loss of capacity (increased internal resistance).  The batt's open circuit voltage could still measure just fine.  It would be interesting to just hang a 10R across the batts and measure the drop in the battery voltage to determine their internal resistance.
In one of the recent videos I show the FG charging a small battery a little bit, but definitely doing so. But I now realise that it doesn't have to... since there's no evidence of battery recharging in the NERD data when it's examined closely. I agree, a proper and simple load test on her batteries would be revealing but we both know we will never see that done -- on the NERD device at least. Also I'd like to know how two of them "caught fire" as she claims.
Quote
Again, no disrepect intended... it's all good...

More coffee and then back to work for me...


PW

And I never thought you were being disrespectful at all. You have constructive criticism and suggestions and you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm not afraid of looking stupid and I do take correction when the correction is correct. Trolls who make distorted comments about nothing at all pertinent, and who have never demonstrated possession of opposable thumbs much less technical prowess, on the other hand, I cannot abide at all.

ETA: oops, I forgot to attach the circuit. Sorry... here it is:
(I can also place in or out a series resistor of 0.3 ohms between the FG + and the gate, because a resistor was shown here in one of Ainslie's many diagrams of the demonstrated circuit.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on March 27, 2012, 06:28:19 PM
Wilby,

Wow, you guys really need to bury the hatchet... life is too short.

You do have to give TK credit for being one of the first, if not the first, to identify the inverted duty cycle issue in the COP=17 circuit.  And, oddly, how that inversion, if the calculations are also inverted, produced a similar COP result.

But yes, I would typically replicate first and then modify second.  I am asked to improve on designs all the time, and I always start with what the customer is currently using to make baseline measurements to improve upon.

PW
:) LOL yeah, there's really no hatchet for me. my righteous indignation at tk is more of me holding up a mirror to him... but he can't see it. or maybe he can and that's why he got so pissed off a year or so back and left 'till recently. i guess i can't blame him... i'm sure he realizes by now that it was even funnier that i made him do all the work to prove himself wrong after he and his sycophants tried so hard to get me to do it. harvey told him a long time ago that his type was easy to manipulate... i think it sailed right over tinselkoala/alsetalokin's head. :)

anyways, you're right, life is too short. i'm going fishing... you have fun here, you'll see soon enough.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 06:53:51 PM
TK,

As for frying one of your quads, that is what happens when MOSFETS (or bipolars for that matter) are paralleled withour individual source (or emitter) degeneration resistors.  Likely the one that popped was the one that had the lowest turn on threshold and was doing most, if not all the work.  Source degerneration helps compensate for the variations in the threshold voltage of the paralleled devices.  It is very likely that in the RA circuit not all, or even only one, of the MOSFETS in the "quad array" is doing all the work, with the rest just providing capacitance for AC current.  If turned on hard enough, the rest will eventually carry some load, but the lowest threshold device will continue to carry the most current.

Seriously, off to work now...

Wish I was going fishing...

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 08:10:25 PM
TK,

As for frying one of your quads, that is what happens when MOSFETS (or bipolars for that matter) are paralleled withour individual source (or emitter) degeneration resistors.  Likely the one that popped was the one that had the lowest turn on threshold and was doing most, if not all the work.  Source degerneration helps compensate for the variations in the threshold voltage of the paralleled devices.  It is very likely that in the RA circuit not all, or even only one, of the MOSFETS in the "quad array" is doing all the work, with the rest just providing capacitance for AC current.  If turned on hard enough, the rest will eventually carry some load, but the lowest threshold device will continue to carry the most current.

Seriously, off to work now...

Wish I was going fishing...

PW

I know, I know something about parallelling mosfets. You are now pitching a bit under my level, but that's OK because I know we have people of all levels reading here. Did you see the paper below? I think Fuzzy first found this one. Odd that that Morris didn't notice the massive overunity performance of his five parallelled IRFPG50 mosfets. Of course ... he followed your suggestion as to the proper way to parallel mosfets, and... he didn't get four of them in backwards, like the NERDs did.
I even told them what to expect when their "gang of four" had to carry 10 or 12 amps, much less the 4200 Amps like was implied by the famous "25.6 megaJoules" test that started my entire objection and involvement.

You might also be interested in my TinselKoil. It uses an H-bridge of 4 power mosfets to switch rectified line current at 170 vdc (roughly) through a 4-turn primary winding of a 300 kHz solid state Tesla coil resonator. The mosfet gates  are driven by phase transformer toroids that are in turn driven by a current amplifier H-bridge of silicon transistors, which in turn is driven by a PWM driver chip (TL494 IIRC). All developed by me, empirically and in public view, and all impossible to accomplish without protective circuitry and proper layout of the power stage to avoid stray inductances and achieve clean switching. Videos on my YT channel.


By the way... my Tar Baby oscillates just fine.... with the Q1 mosfet ENTIRELY REMOVED from the circuit. There is little difference in the scope trace and none in behavior except that it doesn't heat the load much that way. I'm pulling and testing all the mosfets now to see if there are any that are open... a shorted one shows up right away in-circuit but the opens are harder to detect.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 09:47:27 PM
More on removal of Q1:

With Q1 in place, if one uses a bipolar drive signal instead of strictly negative going, one still sees oscillations on only one phase--- at least I do, but my Q1 is mounted with short leads -- but an interesting thing happens. Something that might not be noticed by someone who thinks oscilloscopes are for drawing pretty colored lines with.

The first shot below is using a bipolar gate drive signal of +/- 5 volts, about. This shot is with the lone mosfet Q1 _ENTIRELY REMOVED_ from the circuit by pulling it out of its socket and laying it down on the bench about six inches away. (Of course you can't see the invisible wires, silly.)

The second scope shot below is exactly the same except with the Q1 mosfet back in its socket. See any difference in the oscillations?

What about NOT in the oscillations?

Now, silly old fumblefingers me, barely tall enough to reach the controls.... I sometimes make mistakes in my knob settings or hookups or whatever. But I try to assume FIRST that I have made some error when I see something strange, so I go back and check my work and try to correct what I've done and interpret correctly what I see, by experimenting all around in the problem space, NOT simply "trying to replicate exactly" somebody else's claim of an a-priori impossibility.

Is it possible that other people, perhaps even more naive than I am, could make mistakes, and perhaps not notice them at all?

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 09:48:18 PM
TK,

Didn't mean to throw you a low ball, but, as you say, others may find that useful.

Yes, I have seen most of your HV videos, including your H-bridge driven coil.  It really is a thing of beauty and quite the accomplishment.  Fire up all those HV projects, turn off the lights... talk about mood enhancement...

Many (too many) years ago I built a VDG with a 3.5' foot upper terminal complete with cardioid shaped bottom section, 5" or 6"  belt, dry nitrogen filled column and active corona spray.  When it would discharge into its 24" discharge globe, well, let's just say you did not want to be around it.  Always enjoyed a good HV display, DC or AC.

With Q1 out of circuit, you probably lose around 20% of the AC current path.  If you monitor AC current at the CSR, that is likely where you will see the difference with/without Q1 in the circuit, i.e., a bit more AC current with Q1 in circuit.  Even the 830's have what, 600-800 pf of Ciss (I know you posted the data sheet, it was something like that if I recall).  I would think it would show up on a scope trace at the drain as a slight change in the osc amplitude (with Q1 in circuit). 

Break over,

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 27, 2012, 10:10:36 PM
Oh yeah there's nothing like a good VDG. Yours sounds like it's bordering on dangerous... a proton accelerator kind of thingy....
We tried to reproduce an antigravity claim once by making 2 opposite-charged VDGs with the same physical dimensions you describe, but without the N2-filled column; we regularly got 4-foot long discharges along the belts. We did use some active spray too but it really wasn't needed for our purposes. We tested the voltage by using _giant_ spheres in a calibrated gap arrangement suspended from the ceiling and were able to get 1.2 honest to goodness megavolts tension between the top terminals. The things would make every metal projection in the entire lab warehouse section start spraying corona. In the dark it was somewhere between awesome and really scary.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 27, 2012, 10:19:53 PM
TK,

Based on my experience, I would vote "REALLY" scarey for your setup...

Only knocked myself out once...  It could really reach out and grab you if the discharge term was set too far away...

Dry weather was awesome.

Sorry for the off topic...

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 02:33:30 AM
LEDs of Doom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8YQMHXR-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8YQMHXR-Q)

What is really interesting to me is that, doing nothing else other than using a bipolar pulse or a positive offset on the negative pulse, the Q1 mosfet turns fully and cleanly on during the NON_oscillating phase and heats up the load like an electric coffeepot with 1.5 Amps or more draw as indicated by my series DMM at the battery. When I use a strictly negative pulse so that only the Q2 transistors are doing anything, the oscillations pass only about 50 or 60 milliamps of current.... and with my nice insulated container, this seems to be enough to _keep the thing from cooling off_, until the next bout of "tuning" and turning some mosfets fully on while "tuning" and not recording data, and the load is carrying over an amp of current and heating up like an espresso pot.
And this happens during the part of the cycle where there are NO oscillations... the part where nobody is looking.

And of course as long as the oscillations themselves have sufficient amplitude they will light up the LEDs, both of them, regardless of whether the Q1 is switching cleanly or not.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 02:40:49 AM
Now I'm wondering if any of the NERD published data... by which I mean scope shots or actual spreadsheet dumps from the scope.... do any of their data show the characteristic drain behaviour that I have identified, that shows one or more mosfets turning fully on during the _non-oscillation_ phase of the waveform cycle?

That is, instead of the non-oscillation portion of the drain trace being at or close to battery voltage, it appears instead at or near the ground or zero volt reference level?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 03:39:56 AM
Hey TK:

Nice little clip on the LEDs of Doom.  I am going to be a stick in the mud on you.  Yes the LEDs showed AC current no doubt, but it would have been preferable to have wired then in series with the CSR.  In series with the CSR they are a "sensor" for the series current flow, whereas in parallel they are sensing when the voltage across the CSR exceeds a certain threshold in either direction.  Of course that clearly indicates AC current.  In parallel they also "interfere" with the functioning of the CSR.  Please don't mind me I am just being picky.  The clip is still definitive and shows that there is AC going through the CSR.  Plus when Q1 turns on like you said and if the LEDs are in series then you could blow an LED.

When you think about it, the MOSFET array when oscillating (No Q1 action) is a black box that is taking pulsing DC current in on the input side and generating an AC current signal on the output side.  Inside the black box you have an oscillator, DC in, AC out.

My "LEDs of Doom" concept is to have back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery supply.  Remember that Rosie Posie is excited about the notion that current is being returned to the battery while the Q2 array is oscillating.

So you can envision the following:  The "Deluxe LEDs of Doom:" Back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery, and your back-to-back LEDs in parallel with the CSR.  You power up and you see pulsing unidirectional current flow from the positive feed from the battery and bidirectional current flow through the CSR.  That would be most interesting and thought provoking for some people out there.

Think about this:  The RATs are looking at the CSR and seeing AC current through the CSR.  Therefore the conclusion is that "current is being returned to the battery."  But what's really happening is that inside the circuit there is a black box that takes pulsing DC current in and outputs AC current out.  So it would appear that this engine inside the black box is throwing them off.

Disclaimer:  This is all preliminary and food for thought.  I am not on the bench and that always has to be factored in.  I have clearly been tripped up in the past and there is a 100% chance that I will be tripped up in the future.  I simply can't think about all angles all the time and sometimes I am simply wrong.

When you think about it though there is a certain elegance to this.  It basically says that a CSR in series with the positive lead from the battery will NOT be in agreement with the CSR in the RAT circuit.  We know that there is a fundamental flaw in the RAT circuit because there are two current return paths to the battery, through the existing CSR and through the function generator.  I am assuming that Poynt's reverse-engineering of the RAT circuit in the RAT demo clip is the definitive description of the topology of the circuit.  In addition, we know that there is an engine inside a black box in the RAT circuit that takes pulsing DC current in and then outputs AC current through the CSR.

So the Deluxe LEDs of Doom test, assuming it indicates what I think it will indicate, would tend to support this preliminary theory.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 03:43:33 AM
More data:
Following picowatt's suggestion of trying a DC gate stimulus "tickle" to try to get oscillations without the need for the FG.... I took a 50 ohm resistor and used a jumper to connect it to the board where the FG's leads were connected. Then I "tickled" the positive terminal of the battery at the negative end of my 3-stack.

First I "tickled" the place where the FG's positive lead connects. This turned on the Q1 mosfet hard and clean and it stayed on, essentially a direct short through the mosfet, even after I removed the positive connection (no pulldown) and stayed hard on until I either interrupted the battery connection or "tickled" the negative rail with the 50R on the jumper. I was unable to get oscillations here.

Then... I hooked the jumper to the place where the negative FG lead connects. When I "tickled" the positive battery terminal with the 50R, at first nothing happened... then by accident I heard a buzz from my COMPUTER speakers, checked the scope and the system had entered a wild oscillation state, and my inline DMMs freaked out and stopped indicating, and this oscillation continued, scaring me a bit since I couldn't monitor the current, so I killed it by disconnecting the battery.

It turns out that "tickle" is the key word... if I make a hard connection with the 50R to the batt positive, the Q2 either switches cleanly on and stays on or doesn't switch at all. Just that scratchy brief tickle, though, and you are off screaming like the zombies are after you.

Like I said I was worried about destroying my transistors so I only let it go on for a few seconds. I'll repeat it for a video later on this evening... stay tuned.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 03:49:02 AM
@MH:

I don't really see how the LEDs could survive in a series connection. Either the oscillations won't be present if I use an appropriate dropping resistor for the 36 volt positive supply, or the LEDs will pop and open the circuit.

But of course I'll try it... I've got plenty of LEDs and just I love the smell of that magic smoke.....

 ;)

ETA: Yup... as I thought... with the LED pair in series with a 1800 ohm resistor, right at the +36 volt terminal... only one LED lights and the oscillations are gone and can't be tuned back, so far. The Q2 mosfets are switching cleanly, all 20mA or so of current.

So now what-- reduce the value of the series resistor until the magic smoke _does_ appear?


ETA2: STOP THE PRESSES !! See the latest TKProduction, Tar Baby and the Semi-Deluxe LEDs of Doom... coming to a YT channel near you as soon as it's done uploading.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 04:12:16 AM
TK:

Didn't you say that your multimeter is showing 200 mA battery draw when the circuit is in oscillation?  To me that sounds like all that you need is two LEDs back-to-back - no series resistor.  200 mA through a vanilla LED won't fry it, correct?  I thought that the typical current through an LED was 100 mA.

If you want to be safe perhaps 2+2 LEDs back-to-back will do it for you.  In theory the LEDs like this are benign, and just stealing 0.7 volts from the battery and otherwise not affecting the circuit.

You can't have any series resistor because that will choke off the whole shebang.

Note that the higher the frequency of the oscillation the lower current consumption of the circuit.  The impedance due to the inductance everywhere increases the higher the frequency.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 28, 2012, 04:26:32 AM
Typical led's are 30ma. 

Mags

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 04:35:03 AM
TK:

Didn't you say that your multimeter is showing 200 mA battery draw when the circuit is in oscillation?  To me that sounds like all that you need is two LEDs back-to-back - no series resistor.  200 mA through a vanilla LED won't fry it, correct?  I thought that the typical current through an LED was 100 mA.
um...er... I usually calculate for 20 mA for the standard LED. Some will glow very brightly on quite a bit less.
Quote

If you want to be safe perhaps 2+2 LEDs back-to-back will do it for you.  In theory the LEDs like this are benign, and just stealing 0.7 volts from the battery and otherwise not affecting the circuit.
Each series LED will drop the voltage. Once they turn on they are just like one-directional resistors, and the voltage drop depends on the current you limit by the dropping series resistor. Sure, if there's enough resistance in the rest of the circuit to limit the current to 200 mA at 36 volts, then ten LEDs in series might light brightly. One... would light bery bery brightly for a very short time.
Quote

You can't have any series resistor because that will choke off the whole shebang.

Note that the higher the frequency of the oscillation the lower current consumption of the circuit.  The impedance due to the inductance everywhere increases the higher the frequency.

MileHigh

Ah... yes. OK.... you owe me one green LED. With oscillations indicated, 110 mA showing on the inline meter, I put the green LED in series with no dropping resistor. The current went down to 90 mA indicated and the green LED glowed brilliant orange. It lasted 92 seconds before the light went to dim red ember and the magic white smoke all leaked out.

But the oscillations persisted throughout, until the LED went open totally !!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 28, 2012, 04:38:29 AM
TK,

Regarding the alternate bias using the first batt tap (+12v), you will have to either remove Q1 or tie its gate to it's source and Q2's gate will have to be isolated from the rest of the circuit.  I.e., pull Q1 out and then hook up the 12V via 100K or better to the Q2 gate.  The 50R can go across the current FG terminals (between Q2 source and the CSR).  That should give you similar DC bias conditions for Q2, but as I said, at AC things get a bit muddied.

Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc?  I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense.  Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.

What happens to the LED's if you touch them with your fingers while the circuit is oscillating?

Have you looked at the CSR with a scope channel during the osc?  Does it give you any clues as to the actual voltage/current happening there?

PW



 


     
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 04:41:50 AM
Tar Baby and the Semi-Deluxe LEDs of Doom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEmNZtt3zZ8
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 28, 2012, 04:45:56 AM
TK,

Congratulations, your green LED, after 92 seconds of electron loading into its crystal lattice, has finally acheived a Can't OPerate factor (COP) of infinity.

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 04:47:33 AM
TK:

Thanks to you and Mags on the reminder about the typical current through a vanilla LED.  It's been a long time for me.  The last time I wired up a vanilla LED like that was probably 30 years ago.  Yikes!

Realistically, a 20 or 30 mA LED may be able to withstand 100 mA.  The trick is to check how hot they are getting with your finger and thumb.

Okay I have a Rev 2 for you.  For starters I meant two LEDs in parallel back-to-back with two LEDs in parallel.  That might still be pushing it so if you have a small breadboard handy, if you did 4 LEDs in parallel back to back with 4 LEDs in parallel you will probably be fine.  No series resistor!

MileHigh

P.S.:  I remember putting 5 volts through a vanilla LED with no series resistor.  It made a cracking sound like a firecracker and split in two after about five seconds.  Not as much fun as over-voltageing a small DC motor hanging by it's wires and hearing it scream and spin itself into a spiral of death.  Screw them people for the ethical treatment of motors.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 04:57:57 AM
PW:

Quote
Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc?  I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense.  Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.

You are really good and I am losing my touch/getting lazy.  Would it be due to an effective capacitance associated with the PN junctions?  I think the frequency is in the low megaherttz range but TK will confirm.

MileHigh

P.S.:  TK, just watched the latest clip.  I would think that you are in the MHz range because of both LEDs partially lighting when you shorted them out.  That's a pain in the butt in a way, that very high frequency.  It complicates everything and puts things in "magical Dr. Stiffler" territory.  I was thinking the other day about the sampling rate issues for the DSO and all that, something that Poynt and I touched on last year.  Running at high frequencies like that makes things that much more complicated and certainly way out of the realm of competence of the RAT team.  Now the placement of the wires is that much more critical and so on.  However, it should still not throw off the Rev 2 Deluxe LEDs of Doom test.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 05:09:38 AM
TK,

Regarding the alternate bias using the first batt tap (+12v), you will have to either remove Q1 or tie its gate to it's source and Q2's gate will have to be isolated from the rest of the circuit.  I.e., pull Q1 out and then hook up the 12V via 100K or better to the Q2 gate.  The 50R can go across the current FG terminals (between Q2 source and the CSR).  That should give you similar DC bias conditions for Q2, but as I said, at AC things get a bit muddied.
OK that makes sense, and I'll try it that way after dinner.
Quote
Do you have a rough idea as to the frequency of the osc? 
A rough idea, yes. The scope says that there are nine full cycles PER 2 microseconds. Doing the math (tm RA), we find 9/0.000002 is equal to 4.5 MHz and the unit dimensions agree. (sorry, I couldn't resist).  But the Philips PM6676 counter reports a period of 254 nanoseconds or a frequency of 3923 kHz, give or take. Maybe my scope's timebase is a bit off at that freq, although it checks out with its own calibrator at 10 kHz. It's a miracle that it can resolve the fast oscs at all. I'm using the delayed trigger function to get them displayed stably. I trust the Philips implicitly.

Quote
I am not so sure the LED's in the video were lighting due to AC current through the CSR in the "traditional" sense.  Assuming 1.4V turn on for the LED's, that would require about 5.4 amps going thru the CSR, yet you say the load barely warms during the osc.

What happens to the LED's if you touch them with your fingers while the circuit is oscillating?
Touching it pretty much anywhere, or waving hands around, affects the oscs and can kill or start them. No oscs, no bidirectional current flow in the LEDs.
Quote
Have you looked at the CSR with a scope channel during the osc?  Does it give you any clues as to the actual voltage/current happening there?

PW 

Yes, and it's about what you'd expect to see on a HP180 scope at a gain of .5 v/div trying to get information from a 9 (or 4.5)  mHz signal. I'd hate to have to interpret it in a court of law.

But never fear, the Clarke-Hess power analyzer is near.

Wait till you see what 18 inches of wire inductance can do, in the latest video.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 05:27:50 AM
TK:

I knew it was high in frequency and I made a P.S. in my last posting about that.  I assume the RAT test was comparable in frequency.  It's not like you are in waveguide territory bit it's still quite high just the same - and not trivial.

Not easy stuff to deal with at all in terms of a serious analysis of an energy audit trail.  Like I already said, you have to assume way beyond the competencies of the RAT team.

You have probably looked at your share of "Dr. Stiffler" related clips and they are all just "playing" clips with people making neon lights light up and "sniffing around."

MileHigh


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 28, 2012, 05:32:48 AM
I agree that when pulsed, an led can take quite a bit more than continuous on current.
Remember the conversation we had a bit ago? There is an initial high output flash if you overdrive them. Say we put 10a through a laser diode that continuously wont handle as much, but for a very short amount of time. There will be an amount of time that it can take it.   After the flash dies, and current still flows, the led/laser diode begins to really die. err fry.

Just like diodes have peek amp/time ratings and continuous.

I have to find the laser circuit with the explanation. I was able to get leds to do it also. Not 10a though. ;]

If I can get it going again, with the led chip image on white paper, Ill make a vid.

Its pretty cool to see the 4 sides of the chip flash brighter 1 at a time as the current is increased till they are all brighter.

If this circuit is 1mhz or more, this could very well be a condition that the led will pass more current safely.


Instead of leds, what about shunted analog current meters with diodes on each. If the freq are very high,and rectified, the needle movement shouldnt have any visible vibration. Some meters are quicker and less damped. But if mhz, it should just show the average.
The meter that shows the most current, determines which direction more current is flowing. 

Mags

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 06:29:04 AM
I think the NERD oscs in the demo video were supposed to be at 1.2 MHz if I recall the presenter's narration correctly. Of course, I trust that figure absolutely. Don't you?

But it does seem plausible considering the larger capacitances involved with the PG50. I have a single one I can stick in in 2 different places, either as Q1 or as one of the "gang of four", and I predict that will lower the oscillation frequency but of course not all the way down to 1.2 MHz. We shall see. Tomorrow I may get the other PG50s I've ordered.

By the way, the whine heard on my stereo during the "just right oscs" is the "modulation frequency", that is, the FG's pulse freq or a harmonic of it, while the 4.5 MHz seems to be the "carrier".
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 06:35:15 AM
@Mags: You know I'd be using my old analog Simpson for current monitoring if I could. Unfortunately it's in another undisclosed location right now and I can't get to it. Nor a lot of my other gear either.

I do have a current sensing transformer of the Rogowski coil type that I can try, running several turns of the supply lead through it to increase its sensitivity. It will only respond to the AC component of the current and will indicate the magnitude of the current by the voltage trace of its output, and it's only connected magnetically to the circuit under test. But the one I have might not be very good at 4.5 MHz... we shall see.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 06:51:06 AM
OK... I put the single PG50 that I have into one of the Q2 locations. The only change in circuit behaviour that I can detect on short inspection is that the frequency of the oscillations went down to ... er, hum..... at 1 microsecond per division, using the delayed trigger function and as much of the screen as I can see, I count 23 full cycles PER seven divisions or seven microseconds. Doing the math (tm RA), I do the division operation 23/0.000007 and find the answer, by pressing the "division" key on my calculator (sorry, I just cannot seem to help myself, this is more fun than shooting fish in a barrel) I find just under 3.3 MHz, a pretty good drop from what it was before.  The Philips says 3186 kHz, in good agreement with the scoposcopy.


Here's a screenshot of the HP180's delayed trigger function. The main trace is displayed at 0.2 milliseconds per division, then the expanded delayed trigger trace is shown at 1 microsecond per division. Two timebases on a single screen, with a single beam oscilloscope !! Analog RULES !!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 07:28:56 AM
A note on "replication" and what I'm doing here:

First, as I said in the first post of the thread, RA disavows any notion that the Tar Baby is a replication of her NERD circuit. Even though it uses the same circuit diagram, the same component values except for the mosfets, is driven in the same way at the same frequencies and amplitudes and produces the same waveforms, the Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT replication. Got that? This gives me considerable freedom to experiment, as well as the liberty to apply for the various prizes she has applied for, should I be able to demonstrate battery charging and overunity performance in the Tar Baby device, which is NOT an Ainslie replication.

Second, fiddling around and turning knobs and poking fingers into things, learning about the circuit and its variations and vagaries, I've managed to destroy 3 of my IRF 830a mosfets. (I have a bunch of them).  My local supplier has these in stock for $1.30 each. The IRFPG50, however, costs around 6.50 each and are harder to get, and would also have been destroyed in the same events that got my 830s. Dare I say it..... do the math. That's the cost of a six pack of good beer around here, and I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 09:48:38 AM
Tar Baby and the LEDs Strike Back....:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on March 28, 2012, 11:17:44 AM
Tar Baby and the LEDs Strike Back....:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM72T5YUn84)

Interesting...  KneeDeep
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 02:28:25 PM
Hey the video at the start was awesome the information was great.
green tea pills weight loss (http://greenteapillsweightloss.com)"A high metabolic rate means more fat expenditure and a bigger calorie deficit which is essential to the process of weight loss. A study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that green tea does have an effect on metabolism.
Really George? And what does a spambot know about Tar Babies and inductance and claims of overunity? I must say, I'm not too impressed with your sales ability so far. Here's a thought: why don't you just take your green tea pills and..... take them yourself. All of them. At once. Please report their effect on your metabolism.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 02:39:04 PM
Interesting...  KneeDeep
Yes, I thought so too.

I'm wondering... has there been any progress towards testing the NERD device? I haven't been looking at other threads here and I'm wondering if the NERD RATs have dropped their application or decided not to pursue the matter further.

Because I think we've identified some very easy little tests and trials that might reveal a lot about that device's performance, if somebody would only do them. If the NERD RAT device still exists somewhere, and is the revolutionary COP > Infinity device it has been claimed to be..... wouldn't you think at least _somebody_ would be willing to stay up late, in a room full of electronic test equipment and a computer and a camera or two, testing and reporting until everybody understood what a miracle it is and just how well it worked.

I know I would be, if I believed, really deep down, that I actually had such a device. Heck, I am anyway, and I doubt very severely that I will be able to get anywhere near COP > Infinity with the Tar Baby.

Heck, I'd be happy if it just did half that.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 02:49:17 PM
TK:

Well, those look like the LEDs of Salvation!  World saved!  Civilization powered by RAT pulsing inductors everywhere!  lol

A few thoughts for you.  Goodbye cruel world...  Actually you notice that your 3-4 MHz waveform is actually a repeating "vertical spike" and not a sinusoidal-ish wave.  So there are actually harmonics galore, 8, 12, 16 MHz, etc.   You are really in "spacial energy" (sic) territory.

What makes voltage of the oscillation on the drain go quite high above the battery voltage?  I am guessing when the Q2 MOSFETs turn on that the small wire inductance is energized.  Then when Q2 switches off that stored energy discharges and charges up the stray capacitance in the wire.  Note that when you touch the wire and add capacitance the amplitude of the oscillations goes down.

So I am going to guess that the charged stray wire capacitance discharges back into the battery and that makes the "return" LED light up.  So it's the same old business where the whole setup is "buzzing" relative to a qasi virtual ground plane consisting of your desk, the floor, bla bla bla.  Spatial energy is everywhere dude...

So, two LEDs light up with a 4 MHz "spike."  The new mad theory is that 100 units of energy flow out of the battery, and then 99 units of energy flow back into the battery at 4 MHz.  There is a net outflow of energy that powers the circuit.

So, will the LEDs of Salvation be trumped by the Can't-be-Fooled Capacitor?  That ls the question...

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 03:33:17 PM
@MH: I  wouldn't put too much interpretation on the shape of that waveform within the oscillations. At the frequencies concerned, probes and scope internals have a large effect on subtle things like details within an individual period. if the waveform is regular at all you can rely on the frequency to be precise (if not too accurate) on the scope readout, but the exact shape could be influenced even by how you've got the probe wire strung along the bench. And these probes are "compensated" to give a good waveshape at a certain frequency, and so at other freqs they will distort the shape a bit.
I just checked .99's analysis doc, but it doesn't look like he included any sim traces from the common drain point, he was just concerned about the battery voltage and the CVR indications. Still, the oscillations at the battery in his sim look a lot like the individual cycles I see within the blur. I don't think there is really anything "clicking" or turning on and off hard in the circuit during the oscillations, and I think that they are really classical feedback, very sinusoidal, with some distortion caused by artefact and stray inductances.
But maybe you are right..... otherwise I probably wouldn't be able to pick it up on my FM radio at 88.1 MHz.

ETA: The bandwidth of the old 180 is a factor too. In a few days I'll have results from a more modern, 1 GHz scope and that will let us see what is really happening within those individual osc cycles. Pretty colored lines, too !
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 03:44:01 PM
@MH:
You said
Quote
So, two LEDs light up with a 4 MHz "spike."  The new mad theory is that 100 units of energy flow out of the battery, and then 99 units of energy flow back into the battery at 4 MHz.  There is a net outflow of energy that powers the circuit.
I forgot to show it but the LEDs across the CVR don't light when I have the LEDs-BrownInductor combo in series with the battery.
I can get the green one to glow very dimly but I think the red one stays dark. The red LEDs on the battery must be sucking up the excess TarBalls (not zipons) in the AC oscillation and converting them to red light, so they can't light up the other ones or even make it into the battery unless they sneak through the inductor.... Wait... we've discovered TarBall Tunneling !! It's the only possible explanation for why my batteries are still above 12 volts each, even though I've been running them for 5 hours a day every working day for the past day or two.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 03:54:17 PM
Sorry, I forgot myself for a moment. Seriously now....

We have a couple tests pending on the Tar Baby,  like my simple "dark bulb" test (with matched Zeners if allowed), the MH capacitor test,  and the Ultimate Reality Trial that .99 has proposed for the NERD RAT test. I don't need no stinking academics, I'll be happy to accept the test parameters and conditions that he was proposing to the NERD RATS as a fair test of their claims.

Now, I'm only claiming that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in these tests (or others), allowing for its lower power levels and smaller battery capacity. I'm NOT claiming ..... yet ...... to have achieved OU performance (I haven't yet tested for this, obviously). Since my claim depends on the NERD device itself actually being tested _competently_ by whatever personnel and protocol..... let's get with the program, there, NERDs. Or are you trying to suppress my technology by delaying my progress?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 06:19:23 PM
Hey TK:

More thoughts with standard disclaimers....

Not sure what the bandwidth of your scope is but I think the 4 MHz "spikes"  (spears?) are probably pretty accurate.  Usually if a signal gets mushed up it becomes a sine wave.  It's highly unlikely that a mushed up signal will change into something with a lot of high frequency components.  Also, a lot of Poynt's simulations had very similar looking spear waveforms.

Note that because you basically have a MOSFET array screaming in the RF band that everything becomes very touchy and sensitive and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is in play.  Perhaps you put the inductor in parallel with the two LEDs to allow some DC current to pass through the inductor and thus reduce the chance of popping an LED?  Something happened and your LEDs across the CSR changed in behaviour.  It's possible (but I am starting to feel like I am shooting blanks) that my proposed 4 + 4 back-to-back LEDs in series with the battery positive is still viable.  It's possible that the "outbound" LEDs pointing towards the circuit will glow more brightly than the "inbound" LEDs because of the fact that the current flow is DC with AC superimposed on top of it.  Perhaps more importantly, they may not disturb the circuit too much such that both LEDs across the CSR will still glow evenly.  Your addition of an inductor in series with the battery positive may have been too much of a disturbance.

The "hard core" analysis that the RAT team never even discussed is the oscillation itself and it's mechanism.  My gut feel is that it's just a variation on the theme where a microphone + amplified speakers cause high-pitched feedback in a PA system.  It's arguable that understanding that oscillation is the key but I am not asking you to go there.

In the world of modelling electronic circuits with amplification you can do some fancy footwork with simplified differential equations that can characterize the amplifier as a "filter" that is described by it's "S" parameters.  If I recall correctly, "If there is a "pole" or poles in the right half of the complex "S plane" then the filter can spontaneously oscillate at one of the poles.  Different poles correspond to different frequencies.  I am sure that you have played with a circuit that might be oscillating at say 1 KHz and then you touch it and it "jumps" and starts oscillating at 3 KHz.  There you go....  The S plane in action.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 07:00:33 PM
TK:

About your FM radio squealing at 88 MHz.  That's very interesting because FM radio was specifically designed to be immune to static and noise sources like kitchen appliances, etc.  Frequency modulation vs. amplitude modulation, a very important difference.  It's very rare that you hear interference from an electrical device on the FM radio band when you are tuned into a station.

I suppose that it's possible that the Tar Baby is pelting the radio with tar balls and it's one of those very rare cases that you are overcoming the inherent FM noise immunity.  However, there is another distinct possibility.  The other possibility is that your Tar Baby is so damn noisy that it's disturbing the radio _after_ the FM demodulation is done in the radio.  So the Tar Baby is injecting noise into the circuit board of the FM radio itself.  That's one noisy baby.

Just imagine the nightmare of living in a world full of pulsing inductors everywhere with collapsing magnetic fields.  We would all have to wear radiological exposure badges and sleep in Faraday cages lest we all fry our DNA.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 28, 2012, 07:28:15 PM
TK,

If you will:

With the circuit oscillating, and while observing the drain signal, what happens if you place a cap across the points where your FG is connected to the circuit?  Try using a cap with decent HF characteristics and at least a .1uF of capacitance.  A larger value is better if it has good HF properties.  A voltage rating of 15V or better should be used.  A ceramic or tantalum would be preferrable.

Just briefly touch the cap across those points (at the end of the FG cable) and let us know what happens regarding the oscillation.

PW

P.S., FM IF is 10.7MHz if I recall...

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 28, 2012, 07:43:10 PM
Yes, I thought so too.

I'm wondering... has there been any progress towards testing the NERD device? I haven't been looking at other threads here and I'm wondering if the NERD RATs have dropped their application or decided not to pursue the matter further.

Because I think we've identified some very easy little tests and trials that might reveal a lot about that device's performance, if somebody would only do them. If the NERD RAT device still exists somewhere, and is the revolutionary COP > Infinity device it has been claimed to be..... wouldn't you think at least _somebody_ would be willing to stay up late, in a room full of electronic test equipment and a computer and a camera or two, testing and reporting until everybody understood what a miracle it is and just how well it worked.

I know I would be, if I believed, really deep down, that I actually had such a device. Heck, I am anyway, and I doubt very severely that I will be able to get anywhere near COP > Infinity with the Tar Baby.

Heck, I'd be happy if it just did half that.

Hey TK,

Your right about the NERD RAT testing, you would think that any of the authors that appear on the papers that were submitted for publication in a accredited journal or magazine would be all over the proof or verification of the COP>INFINITY claim. Especially Donovan Martin whom owns Donix Embedded Systems http://www.donixes.co.za/  specializing in "electronic circuits" and his name appears in all four (4) papers over the years Rosemary was a part of. You would think Donovan would be around right now backing up the claims in the COP>INFINITY papers and posts at OU Rosemary made .... but so far a no show ever.  :o

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 09:14:01 PM
TK,

If you will:

With the circuit oscillating, and while observing the drain signal, what happens if you place a cap across the points where your FG is connected to the circuit?  Try using a cap with decent HF characteristics and at least a .1uF of capacitance.  A larger value is better if it has good HF properties.  A voltage rating of 15V or better should be used.  A ceramic or tantalum would be preferrable.

Just briefly touch the cap across those points (at the end of the FG cable) and let us know what happens regarding the oscillation.

PW

P.S., FM IF is 10.7MHz if I recall...

Well, all the tantalums I have in stock are in the multi uF range. I have some good ceramic caps, Y5U dielectric, marked 500M 15kV. Depending on the FG amplitude setting, this either increases the magnitude of the oscs or has no effect. Other caps I tried either diminish or kill the amplitude of the oscs. I didn't look at high resolution, though.

I'm running a temperature profile test right now, bipolar pulses so both Q1 ( one 830a) and the Q2s are active, with the one PG50 in a Q2 slot seemingly taking most of the load on that side of the phase. Load is heating like an overworked espresso machine, DC inline ammeter indicating 1.45 amps. I'm running with the back-to-back LEDs with parallel inductor in series with the battery; both LEDs glowing brightly.

The rest of my PG50s have still not arrived.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2012, 10:14:09 PM
I'd like to know if any of the published scope shots or spreadsheet dumps from the NERD RATs show signs of a bipolar gate drive pulse from the FG, or, equivalently, a positive offset of more than 2 volts in the base level of their negative-going pulse drive.

In the case of the earlier Quantum COP>17 device, which was claimed to produce load heating at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent ON... and whose performance was analyzed on that basis by the claimants at that time..... I found, and others after me found, that the published 555 timer in that case actually produced an inverted duty cycle at the load, in other words the load was ON 96.5 percent of the time. So the load heating wasn't anomalous at all, as I was also able to show, using their timer circuit and duty cycle. Their claims of battery recharging at that time depended on another ad-hoc numerical attempt at integration of a spiky power waveform, by people who didn't understand numerical methods, integration, power, or waveforms. In other words, it was another comedy of errors, misinterpretations, and distortions of data.

In the present case I am able, once again, to get close to some heating profiles they have mentioned. And... an extremely simple set of maladjustments and buttonpresses and scoposcopy allows one to do this. It even happens " inadvertently " during the "tuning" process. I imagine the device needs to be re 'tuned' anytime anything is moved on the workbench or somebody else comes into the room. Each time it's being "tuned" it dissipates power in the load, but isn't being monitored. When it's finally "tuned" and the data collection begins, the load is already hot and the oscillations don't need to pass any substantial power.

But my batteries don't seem to be recharging themselves. Darn.


@MH.... When I do the capacitor test, do you think my batteries should be fully charged, or partly depleted as they are now? They are just beginning to drop below 12 volts no-load, after several days of fooling around.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 28, 2012, 11:11:32 PM
TK:

I don't think that it's super critical but if I was in your shoes I would recharge the batteries or do Plan B stated below.  That way you are are certain that none of the batteries are sticking out like a sore thumb where one of them has a higher output impedance than the others.  I would find that annoying.

Since I am here I will mention another thing that I would do.  Rosie has never really known the health or state of charge of her batteries.  If I was managing five or six batteries I would keep a trusty 5-watt or 10-watt resistor handy of a certain value.  I would use the resistor to spot-check the batteries for their voltage drop under load - i.e.; a way of spot checking their output impedance.

So, if you don't want the hassle of recharging your batteries, you can just take that trusty resistor out of your Koala utility pouch and spot check the batteries before the cap test.

Knowledge is Power, and why not an intentional pun.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 12:10:03 AM
Hey TK,

Your right about the NERD RAT testing, you would think that any of the authors that appear on the papers that were submitted for publication in a accredited journal or magazine would be all over the proof or verification of the COP>INFINITY claim. Especially Donovan Martin whom owns Donix Embedded Systems http://www.donixes.co.za/ (http://www.donixes.co.za/)  specializing in "electronic circuits" and his name appears in all four (4) papers over the years Rosemary was a part of. You would think Donovan would be around right now backing up the claims in the COP>INFINITY papers and posts at OU Rosemary made .... but so far a no show ever.  :o

FTC
 ;)

I'd like to speak with Mr. Martin myself. There are one or two points I'd like him to clear up.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 04:33:03 AM
I like the idea of the simple load test. A hefty resistor of 10 ohms or so, hook up, take a reading at ten seconds. Thanks...

And I bought another battery today, so I have 4 the same, even if three have already been touched by the Tar Baby.

Does anyone think that the Ainslie Effect could happen at 24 volts? That's all she claimed were needed for the earlier COP>17 device, IIRC.


And.... I cannot seem to get significant load heating when only the Q2 mosfets are oscillating from a strictly negative-going gate drive signal. And certainly my batteries aren't recharging, in spite of the nice AC stuff happening. (Oh... maybe the LEDs are preventing this. I'll remove them for further testing since we know what they show by now.)

Is anyone prepared to try to convince me, before I try them, that the IRFPG50 will give results that are significantly different?

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 04:56:36 AM
TK,

When checking the batteries with an external resistor such as the 10R, make sure you note the open circuit voltage as well as the loaded voltage.  You'll need both Vopen and Vload to determine the Rinternal. 

Apologies in advance if this is another low pitch...

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
TK,

Maybe MH has an easier way, but I typically use the following:

Vopen-Vloaded=Vdrop

Vloaded/Rload=Iloaded

Vdrop/Iloaded=Rinternal

Hopefully this is not a grounder...

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 06:16:44 AM
No, I got it fine, thanks!

Only which way do I hook up that resistor? One way and it's a 10R, the other way and it's a R01.  Oh, wait.....I can just check it with an ammeter and see how many watts of temperature it leads out.

it's a drag being color blind.

(Just kidding around. I'm getting bored. I do appreciate the suggestions and clarifications. If everything is made painfully clear to me and to the silent audience... maybe we'll get somewhere, eventually.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 29, 2012, 06:23:51 AM
TK:

This might give you some inspiration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej_BHc1UaDA

Applying concepts of modular dynamicism to recreate, unfold, and resequence the tar ball paradigm may be the key.

When in doubt, just blast it through.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 06:26:41 AM
OK... for the simple "dim bulb" battery comparison test.

I now have 4 batteries, one a bit newer than the other three. 12 V, 5 A-H, Toyo-Usp 6FMH4 model. I'll charge them all equally using the automatic charger, then I'll randomly set one aside and run Tar Baby in the "preferred oscillation mode" (if we can figure out what it is) on the other three. I'll run for a suitable time, TBA, and then separate the pack and hook up all 4 batteries individually to their own car brake light bulbs. #1157, IIRC, or similar. Time-lapse webcam, all that jazz. If the Tar Baby is recharging its batteries more than it's using them, then the TB batteries/bulbs should NOT dim sooner than the unused battery/bulb. OTOH, if Tar Baby is drawing power from the batteries during its run, the batteries should be depleted and their bulbs should dim first.
I'll run the test several times to be sure, with a fresh charge and re-randomized selection each time.

Now here's the question: Does it make sense to use series Zener diodes with the bulb test to set a "cutoff" point, say 11.5 volts, so I don't flatten the batts if I fall asleep or something?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 06:31:51 AM
TK,

In my book, R01=.01 ohms

I believe they make a special meter for passing current through a resistor and measuring the Vdrop acrossed it.  It then calculates the ohms for you...  its called an ohmometer or something like that...

PW

MH... Re the vid:  I used to have hair and a beard like that, I was often referred to as looking like "an explosion in a steel wool factory".  Wish I still had the hair!!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 06:47:07 AM
TK,

Have you scoped across the battery during the osc?  Just wondering if you are seeing the osc there.  You may have to remove your chokes/LED's to check for it.  If the osc is at Vbatt, does its amplitude look symmetrical about Vbatt or does the amplitude appear to peak a bit more above or below Vbatt?

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 29, 2012, 06:55:43 AM
TK:

I would want to burn off 50% of the energy in the three batteries before I did the light bulb test.  I know that you are ostensibly testing if the batteries are being recharged by the circuit but still.  If you know the power dissipation then run as long as needed to burn off half of the energy and then do the test.

I think that it would be very prudent to cut off the load when the voltage drops below your threshold voltage.  I can still step into the Way-Back machine and design a breadboard circuit in my head to do that easily.  Do you have your own method?  I can't envision Zener diodes helping you here unless you use a very low ohm resistor in series with the Zener diode and the battery source.  I would find that really inelegant though.  Do you want some ideas?  Do you have opamps and flip-flops?

PW:

I stumbled upon that guy tonight and he is great and the big hair and beard is great!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 07:00:39 AM
TK,

I wonder if a good viscous damped compass over the wire from Vbatt would be sensitive enough to act as an inductive ammeter for current in/out measurements.  I do believe I have seen you using some nice compasses in your vids.  You could try charging the batts from a bench supply to get an idea of the sensitivity and polarity versus current fed from the supply, and then do load tests at various R values to check its discharge polarity and sensitivity.  The damping might act like an integrator and give you some idea as to current flow direction.  You might have to mount the compass level and to solid block/board with the wire running under it...

Just a thought..

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 29, 2012, 07:15:48 AM
PW:

That's a really innovative thought.  But if I may tweak your thought since the oscillations are so high in frequency then just an ordinary compass should do the trick.  I am assuming a "DC" output from the function generator where the output is low for 10 or 20 seconds so the needle stabilizes.

Assuming that the current flow is in the tens of mA I assume that you will see the needle deflect.  You could then just run pure DC through the same wire and match the deflection angle and get your approximate current consumption and direction.

The beauty of your test is that it's a 'pure' test that does not modify the battery supply to the circuit in any way.  So if that old RAT magic needs to have undisturbed batteries the test will do that.  Very cool.

The bottom line is that it will establish which way the RAT current flows definitively, an issue that has been a bone of contention for years.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 07:23:51 AM
MH,

To damp or not to damp, either would probably work.  Damped would be less prone to "moving about".  I think I recall TK using a compass in a video some time ago.  He might have been doing ths exact same thing.  TK, correct me if it wasn't you.

I can't remember all that well, I had to forget a bunch of stuff to make room for more.

PW



Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 07:37:25 AM
TK&MH,

What do you think, wire under compass perpendicular to magnetic north?  That way Earth's pull would would put the needle perpendicular to the wire and E-W would be Idirection.  Earth can be the return to null "spring".

Also, if necessary, a few turns of sufficiently sized for the current magnet wire over and under the face of the compass for more sensitivity?

TK, you would have to empty your pockets of all those magnets you carry around.  Possibly a low iron diet as well?

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 11:34:17 AM
You do realise that I have a Clarke-Hess 2330 power analyzer sitting here on the shelf, right? I'm really not sure what a compass needle will tell me that the 2330 won't. It will tell me the power in and out, and it won't be fooled by complex stuff like HF AC sitting on top of DC. At least I don't think it will.

Besides, all those "nice compasses" are two thousand miles away from where I am right now, and I'm at the limit of my expenditures for this little time-waster. I think I have one or two good navigational compasses here, but except for the visual effect I can't see them being any different than a moving coil meter and they'd be less sensitive too. I'm not rejecting the idea, I'm just not sure what the payoff might be. I mean, we have several good instrumental measures of what's happening, and when I scope the CVR with a proper connection to a fast DSO, that will show what's happening well enough, won't it?

I am even getting PMs from True Believers telling me, over and over, that I am wasting my time doing this, and that I should be doing Real Research (tm), like looking at the Steven Marks hoaxes or Bedini motors or real stuff like gravity wheels and such like that.

Regardless, the LEDs have told us what we were looking for, have given us a point of comparison and have scared the knickers off the RATS. But perhaps they interfere in the battery charging effect, because  my batteries certainly do run down at this point. So I've removed all the LEDs, and I've also removed my "internal load" on the board, since it's no longer in use either.  So the only "extra" component is the 0.33 ohm  resistor that I can use, or not use, in series with the gate signal, as was shown on one or the other of the diagrams she's claimed to use. And instead of 4 x 1 ohm resistors parallelled as the CVR with one extra mystery resistor, I am using 2 x 0.51 ohm in parallel. Other than that, and using sockets instead of clipleads and threaded rods for my IRF830a mosfets... and the mosfets themselves.... it's getting hard to tell the difference between Tar Baby and the Nerd Rat device.

Of course, I'm still not using white pegboard either..... which proves that I'm not doing an exact replication, so of course none of my results can be applied to the analysis of the NERD RAT device.

My idea about using the Zeners for the DimBulb test was simple and naive... won't it work? At 11.5 volts, the batteries will be nearly depleted. I don't have the exact discharge curve available but these are standard sealed lead-acid. So I thought simply to put a reverse-biased 11.5 volt, 5 Watt zener in series with the bulb. I don't care about the absolute brightness of the bulb, all I care about is which battery reaches the Zener voltage cutoff first. I've never tried this and I don't know if I'll get a clean cutoff with just a simple series zener or not, in fact I doubt it, but would it be suitable for the test to do it that way? One could certainly design a slightly more complex circuit and have a zener switch a transistor or something like that....

Or I can just monitor the voltage with an Arduino and have an alarm wake me up when it approaches a threshold, I suppose.

PG50s are supposed to be in yesterday, but weren't. Maybe today....

And I do have on hand some op amps, 741s and TL082s and some others, and I have a bunch of 4000 and 74 series chips stashed in metal cans in anticipation of the Great EMP Event, and I know there are some flipflops, inverters, and Schmitt triggers in there.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 12:08:47 PM
Oh yes... operating mode.

It seems that I will either be able to heat the load strongly, OR have a unipolar driving pulse with only Q2 active at all and minimal load heating. Both modes produce the oscillations, of course, with the only apparent difference being where the baseline is of the drain signal during the NON_oscillating phase of the signal. And of course the DC current draw is different, which reads about 100 - 150 mA with negative gate drive only, or 1.5 amps or more during bipolar driving with Q1 carrying most or all of the heavier load.

With the 1.5 amp drain, heating the load strongly, a four-hour run time should pretty much flatten my 5 A-H batts, right? But with only 100 mA drain, I'd have to go a day and a half or two days for the same charge depletion, right?

Seriously, I'm asking what would be the expected runtime on the TarBaby, letting it charge or discharge as it will,  to prepare the batteries for the DimBulb test, in the two operating modes.


I'd really really like to see  some _good evidence_ that the NERD RAT device can produce substantial load heating from a negative-going gate drive pulse and oscillatory waveforms and low load currents as shown in their scope shot. Did they talk about load heating at all in the video(s) or present evidence that the load was hot during the demos?

(I sure don't remember any dramatic moments when a cup of steaming boiling hot tea is poured out of the load chamber, live on camera. Either they have no sense of theater, or they had no hot water.)

I mean, when my load heats up I can at least show it doing so on a thermometer reading on a video, and I can illustrate the circuit electrical parameters when it is doing so. And I am so short I can barely reach my tools !

(It might be interesting to put the DC ammeter DMM in series with the Function Generator, and set it for very slow pulses so the DMM can get a decent sample.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 01:11:25 PM
A brief summary of results so far:

With the tight layout on the perfboard, using 2n7000 mosfets and a heavier inductive load at low voltage, the oscillations were easy to make all over the place, but not very informative. This testing did show that I at least didn't screw up the wiring and allowed me to get some idea of orientation of the circuit and its dynamics. Here I showed that using a series capacitor would still switch the mosfets but killed the oscillations. I smoked 2 ea. 2n7000s during this phase.

With the tight layout and IRF830a mosfets I couldn't make the "real" oscillations consistently at full amplitude and fully across the cycle. I thought I had identified some feedback oscs in there but I wasn't seeing the massive noise that seem to be the genuine article. I could switch the mosfets fairly cleanly and get lots of load heating even with the heavy inductive load. Some nice spikes, but evidently those aren't needed now. I managed to blow one mosfet from stupidity (wire confusion on the bench) and two more in an overheat runaway event.

Then I read the humbugger work on the other forum. This, plus looking at the NERD video again, made me realize that it was the layout, not the mosfets themselves, that was likely responsible for the oscs.... so I cut random wires and soldered them onto my mosfets, and placed them on some larger heatsinks, not so much for heat transfer but for capacitance. Bingo et voila! Massive Robust Feedback caused by inductance and capacitive coupling in the leads. Sensitive to motion and exact placement.
I tried a simple optoisolator arrangement to get the FG out of the current path, which worked very well as far as switching goes but damped the oscillations. I still think a modification of this idea might work. I fried 2 ea. H11D1 optoisolators during these experiments, one by blowing its input LED and the other by somehow blowing the phototransistor.

Lots of scoposcopy determined the correlation between which mosfets were on and what the waveform looks like; the presence of the AC component; the frequency of the oscillations; the effect of replacing one 830 with a PG50 as either Q1 or one of the Q2 stack; the effect of varying offset and bipolar pulsing on mosfet switching, current and load heating; the LEDs of Doom test... Let the smoke out of one green LED just for fun to rattle MH's cage....
(But also I hope I was able to illustrate a little bit about the quantitative use of an oscilloscope, for the Watchers from Beyond..)

Load heating using the water heater load was inefficient in my setup because of all the metal that wasn't submerged; the 10.3 ohm, 60-watt parallel wirewound ceramic resistor load can be totally submerged in the mineral oil and therefore works much better as a heater at the same power levels in my system than the commercial product does. The little inductive transformer choke also worked well as a heater until one winding went open when it got too hot, but it was lousy for oscs. I wondered why then.... (but not any more....) since at one time I thought I recalled the NERDs specifying a 1.5 Henry inductance. (A meter reading without sanity checking, I think that might have been.)

Load heating worked just fine using a bipolar pulse to turn on at least one mosfet fully during the pulse cycle, during the antiphase from the oscillations. By overdriving the gate I could produce oscillations in both phases but this reduced the current, as the oscillating mosfets do not turn on fully. With unipolar drive pulses going strictly negative with no positive baseline offset, very little load heating happens and the device current is low, since Q1 is off (and can even be removed entirely) and the Q2 mosfets are only oscillating, not switching.

During the testing, my batteries have discharged. I have no control comparison so I can't tell if they discharged faster or more slowly than "normal" for the kinds of drains I have been putting on them, and during these pilot experiments I haven't been monitoring their state of charge, other than by looking occasionally at their no-load voltage. When they dropped below 11.5 volts yesterday evening I stopped testing and started recharging, so they will all be nice and fresh when they meet Mr. Clarke-Hess for luncheon.

Still pending while I've still got the 830s in place are the Capacitor Battery test, in and out power measurements with the Clarke-Hess, some explorations with compasses, and one or two other things that I want to try like the DMM inline with the FG. Then, assuming my other PG50s haven't been confiscated by the Forces of Suppression, aka the MIB mob, I'll repeat everything with them in the slots. I'm not going to do any drawdown or Dim Bulb tests until I have the PG50s and have run with them for a while, though.

So the score is: 2 minimosfets, 3 little brother mosfets, one choke winding, two optoisolators and a green LED. Not bad for a week's work !
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: conradelektro on March 29, 2012, 01:52:44 PM
@ TinselKoala: 

Your careful experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to understand what a weird circuit is doing, not to speak of making meaningful measurements. (That explains the many misconceptions put forward by overunity experimenters.)

Question: From the discussion just above this post I gather that you try to measure tiny deviations from the expected energy output or input of your big batteries (a tiny little bit less flows into the batteries than comes out to run the circuit)? But the claim of the "inventors" of this weird circuit is that the effect is massive. So, even a crude measurement should proof or refute it?

Assumption 1: You want to show that the weird circuit consumes a tiny bit more than it feeds back to the batteries (as common theory would suggest)? Which is difficult, because the power consumtion of the circuit is very small in comparison to the huge capacity of the batteries?

Assumption 2: You want to show that the transistors are not even switching and that only some low power high frequency AC current (in fact a malfunction or misoperation of the circuit) is flowing through the circuit in an unexpected way?

Assumption 3: You want to show that only during a neglected and short adjustment phase (when the transistors are indeed switching) some really strong current is flowing through the circuit doing the claimed heating?

Sorry for the stupid questions, for a layman it is easy to loose track of your objectives. The subject matter is rather complicated (and you are doing a good job to dissect it in order to show the real issues at hand.)

Conrad
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 29, 2012, 04:13:12 PM
TK:

Just a few quick comments and I will try to post more tonight.

I checked your watt meter:

Quote
The Model 2330 Sampling Watt Meter is a precision, high accuracy, auto-ranging  watt meter which simultaneously measures and displays true rms Voltage, true rms Current and true mean Power over a frequency range from dc to more than 600kHz.

So the signal is above the bandwidth of your meter.

For the battery automatic cut-off:  You low-pass filter the battery positive signal and feed it into an opamp configured as a comparitor.  You use a trim-pot to set the comparitor threshold.  The output of the opamp resets a flip-flop.  The oputput of the flip-flop drives an NPN transistor that keeps your relay energized until the low-voltage trigger event happens.  You want to make the capacitor in the low-pass filter big enough to filter out glitches so that you don't prematurely trigger.  You have to be sure that your low-pass filter does not disturb the oscillations on the battery positive lead.  I can explain more this evening if you want.

PW:

I would run the wire in line with the magnetic North-South underneath the compass.  That way you are applying torque about the vertical axis when there is current flow.  Adjust the distance between the compass and the wire for varying the sensitivity.  If the wire is perpendicular to North-South then in theory there is zero torque about the vertical axis when you have initial current flow.

I really doubt that you would need multiple turns of wire and that's adding more inductance.

All in all, I really like the idea.  It would have been perfect for the original RAT circuit and I think it would be fair to call it the "Compass of Doom."   lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 04:40:12 PM
@ TinselKoala: 

Your careful experiments demonstrate how difficult it is to understand what a weird circuit is doing, not to speak of making meaningful measurements. (That explains the many misconceptions put forward by overunity experimenters.)

Question: From the discussion just above this post I gather that you try to measure tiny deviations from the expected energy output or input of your big batteries (a tiny little bit less flows into the batteries than comes out to run the circuit)? But the claim of the "inventors" of this weird circuit is that the effect is massive. So, even a crude measurement should proof or refute it?
Yes, you are right. But the claim of the "inventors" is actually already refuted by the data that they themselves have posted, when it's correctly analyzed. Anyway, anything that I measure on this circuit will be denied by them, even if I produce self-charging batteries. Much of my current purpose consists in a hopeful attempt to spur them along, to test their circuit rationally and purposefully, and post their results in a clear and coherent manner. I hope I am providing an example of one way to do this.
Quote

Assumption 1: You want to show that the weird circuit consumes a tiny bit more than it feeds back to the batteries (as common theory would suggest)? Which is difficult, because the power consumtion of the circuit is very small in comparison to the huge capacity of the batteries?

Assumption 2: You want to show that the transistors are not even switching and that only some low power high frequency AC current (in fact a malfunction or misoperation of the circuit) is flowing through the circuit in an unexpected way?

Assumption 3: You want to show that only during a neglected and short adjustment phase (when the transistors are indeed switching) some really strong current is flowing through the circuit doing the claimed heating?
What I hope to show is that "my" circuit performs the same as theirs. So far, I've shown the things you state are indeed true for my circuit, operating with the IRF830a mosfets, and I believe that they will also be true for the IRFPG50, but this is yet to be determined. If we could only get them to perform real tests like I show, we would know more about their circuit's performance. Your Assumption 3.... the only way we can know this about _their_ circuit is by careful examination of their data where it could be revealed, or by very simple tests. I have even shown live on camera that my temperature actually climbs, and the waveforms that are associated with that. Have we seen anything like this level of detail from the NERDs, even though they are claiming "opensource" and "public domain" and COP Infinity? No, we have not. But we would like to, certainly.
Quote
Sorry for the stupid questions, for a layman it is easy to loose track of your objectives. The subject matter is rather complicated (and you are doing a good job to dissect it in order to show the real issues at hand.)

Conrad
No apology is necessary. There is a real difference between "stupid" questions and good questions. A "stupid" question might concern my height or my appearance or my moustaches or how many Watts are there in a Joule. All your questions seem to be good questions to me, not stupid at all.
And you are also right: it is indeed important to focus on real issues..... COP INFINITY and an attempt to gain a monetary prize with that claim.

Regardless of how the battery charging claim plays out, I am getting more concerned about this load heating issue right now. I would really really like to see some solid evidence that their load actually heats significantly when the oscillations are present and a strict negative-going pulse is used.

Stll, the NERDs only seem to be claiming 12 Watts of power dissipated in the load. Since P=I^2R and R is around 10 ohms, this means I = sqrt 1.2  or about 1.1 amps. Still seems implausible based on my maximum  current during oscillations only of around 200 mA with a strict negative pulse, but certainly reachable with overdrive on the gate or with a tad bit of positive offset or a bipolar pulse with oscillations.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
TK:

Just a few quick comments and I will try to post more tonight.

I checked your watt meter:

So the signal is above the bandwidth of your meter.
Yes... the oscillation frequency is above the stated bandwidth of the meter. Is it the oscillation that is supposed to be recharging the battery? I guess it is.... the power that is lighting up the LEDs, sitting on top of the DC signal, is the only thing in the circuit that has been shown to have the power to do so.

But then why isn't it charging my batteries?

I understand your concern, though, and why you might not accept Clarke-Hess data on the output side of the Tar Baby. But what about the input side? The batteries themselves should act as a low pass filter, and as humbugger and 0.99 have shown in sims, the battery voltage really isn't rippling hardly at all when measured correctly.
Quote
For the battery automatic cut-off:  You low-pass filter the battery positive signal and feed it into an opamp configured as a comparitor.  You use a trim-pot to set the comparitor threshold.  The output of the opamp resets a flip-flop.  The oputput of the flip-flop drives an NPN transistor that keeps your relay energized until the low-voltage trigger event happens.  You want to make the capacitor in the low-pass filter big enough to filter out glitches so that you don't prematurely trigger.  You have to be sure that your low-pass filter does not disturb the oscillations on the battery positive lead.  I can explain more this evening if you want.
No, I got it, and I have all the parts on hand. I'm just not sure I want to go to the trouble at this point. I need to see proof of load heating under their strict negative going pulse, or produce it myself, before I'll believe that they even have their knobs and buttons set right.
Quote
PW:

I would run the wire in line with the magnetic North-South underneath the compass.  That way you are applying torque about the vertical axis when there is current flow.  Adjust the distance between the compass and the wire for varying the sensitivity.  If the wire is perpendicular to North-South then in theory there is zero torque about the vertical axis when you have initial current flow.

I really doubt that you would need multiple turns of wire and that's adding more inductance.

All in all, I really like the idea.  It would have been perfect for the original RAT circuit and I think it would be fair to call it the "Compass of Doom."   lol

MileHigh

OK... but I don't think that the needles will respond very well to 4 MHz ac, and we already know the direction of the DC current flow, don't we? Still, I'll try it if I can arrange my bench well enough. Later though-- I have to go to work today.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2012, 04:59:35 PM
@pw:
Yes, I used some compasses in earlier videos, but I don't think it was to indicate current in a wire. Eddy currents and magnet polarities, something like that, IIRC.

I remember old Prof. Oersted and the difficulties he had with compasses and currents. It took him a while before he got that one right, and all of us in his class got a big laugh out of it at the time.

Of course I'll try it but I don't want to magnetize my good map compass so I'll try to find some little toy ones.

(Or I could use that ballistic galvanometer sitting over there on the shelf....)
 8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on March 29, 2012, 06:25:16 PM
TK,

Actually, of all the proposed tests, the idea you had regarding "light bulbs", or a variation thereof made the most sense. 

Two sets of fully charged batteries, a quick check of Rint on both, one set runs the "black box" for a perod of time, disconnect the "black box" and then apply an equal load to both sets of batts and run them down to a predetermined voltage, recheck Rint, recharge and swap.  A bit time consuming, but I think it was a very good suggestion.

Have you scoped across Vbatt?  In one of the RA tests in particular, I see an assymetrical amplitude of the osc about the Vbatt line that I find interesting.  I was just wondering what you see there.  I believe the RA scope shot I am talking about was in test 3 in the first "rossi" paper. 

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 12:28:41 AM
TK:

I believe a RAT conclusion is that here is a net reverse current flow back into the battery.  Certainly they allege that there is a net power flow back into the battery.  That is also synonymous with "COP infinity."  So that's why it's interesting.

Keep those delicious lip-smacking oscillations coming!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 30, 2012, 12:50:55 AM
With the current measurements and the led's and light bulbs, are we trying to see if current is going back to the battery?

If so, it got me thinking. If we had 2 very large caps, one in series with a diode in forward direction, and the other with a series diode in the opposite direction. The see which cap fills first. Or at least which is taking charge faster.

Then a simple thought came to mind. Not related.

If we have a 12v battery with + connected to the cap, the other end of the cap connected to a light bulb, and then the bulb to the - of the batt.

The light will light and gradually get dim then no light as the cap is charged. Then when the cap is fully charged, we can use that "once used" energy again to light the bulb for another cycle without the battery.

Some of the energy used , then reused, is a bit useless in light output, but the energy was still being used and reused to make light and heat.

Could it heat water for near half the input?
 

So if we have a converter or a JT( may need to be expanded upon) we might just might be able to have a 2 for 1 sale for powering other items ;]


Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 30, 2012, 03:41:27 AM
Ok, here is a very simple example.

The switch at the top right is held on til the cap fully charges through the load and then open the switch.

Now we close the switch in the middle of the circuit to discharge the cap into the load, without the battery. When the cap is fully discharged, the cycle repeats.

The scope shots show the source on the left and the load on the right.

We can recycle energy. Use it more than once.   

Did we gain anything?  :o ;)


Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 04:22:23 AM
IRFPG50s are in hand, 5 each.

I also have some pegboard and some white paint. Those clipleads with the black tabs on the alligator clips though... those have been hard to find.  I might have to use bare clips. That will obviously invalidate my reeeee search.

But just in case it doesn't....

@Mags: When you have current flowing through the resistor, power is dissipated as heat. When you have current flowing into the capacitor, power is dissipated as heat. When you have current flowing out of a battery, power is dissipated as heat.
But you already  knew I would say that.

@MileHigh....yesss..... As I recall RA made some pretty strong statements about the state of LEDs in her circuit. SO at minimum, I think my results contradict her statements... but probably not the actual performance of her circuit. Can you really imagine them actually testing as I did? No, I cannot. She's just making stuff up out of her head.
If she's not.... a dollar's worth of parts and ten minutes with a borrowed video camera could prove it.

@PW: sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question about scoping the batt. Yes, I did do this, and at first inspection it looks like her batt trace, but of course at lesser amplitude.

But I have the PG50s in hand, and later on after I've come down from the drive home, I'll stick them in and repeat some of the baseline testing I've already done with the 830s.

I also scored some real, NOS, non-Chinese made, #1157 light bulbs, two filaments each.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 04:32:56 AM
@Mags: Can you have your sim integrate those two sets of traces? Integrate over the time the negative waveform on the left, and compare that to the  total integration of the two positive waveforms on the right.

Ah... the wonders of modern computing. If I want to integrate a waveform on the HP180, I have to trace it on paper, cut out the tracing, and weigh it on an analytical balance.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 30, 2012, 04:45:52 AM
Yes i can. I see why now also.  The source trace is longer.

Also with the cap in series with the load, we have a voltage division of the source.

Sooo, with a 5v source, as the cap charges, the source -cap=vr

So the load only gets half of what the source lost, and the cap gets the other. Then the caps "half" delivers the other half to the load.

Yup. Looked good in the brain. ;] 

Soo is that why we seem to lose 50% of energy when we discharge a cap into another cap till they even out. Voltage division. Not a loss in heat.  No? :o

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 05:21:22 AM
TK:

Are we permitted a little diversion while the tar is brewing?

Scenario 1:  So, you have a 1 kg mass sliding happily along on a magic frictionless plane at 1 m/s.

Scenario 2:  The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 1 kg.  When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.

Scenario 3:  The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 0.5 kg.  When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.

So the question is, what are the energies in scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 30, 2012, 05:48:56 AM
Here is one more using the same to charge the cap through the load, but instead of just discharging the cap to the load, we put the source and cap in series(switches).

The first one we see half of the source dissipated into the load and the other half into the cap.
But when we add the cap in series with the source, we have  source+cap=vr.  The energy from the source is equal to the load overall in the series switch mode.

But we still lost during the charging of the cap.

Just fiddling

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 07:18:29 AM
Yes i can. I see why now also.  The source trace is longer.

Also with the cap in series with the load, we have a voltage division of the source.

Sooo, with a 5v source, as the cap charges, the source -cap=vr

So the load only gets half of what the source lost, and the cap gets the other. Then the caps "half" delivers the other half to the load.

Yup. Looked good in the brain. ;] 

Soo is that why we seem to lose 50% of energy when we discharge a cap into another cap till they even out. Voltage division. Not a loss in heat.  No? :o

Mags
No, I don't think so. The losses will always wind up as heat, or maybe RF radiation, which is the same thing just lower frequency. The cap has an "ESR" or equivalent series resistance which is dissipative, and also it does take work to stretch lattices and move electrolytes around and jiggle ions and stuff like that there. But that's not what's causing the voltage drop equalization.
The Energy in Joules on a capacitor goes as the square of the voltage and linearly with the capacitance: E = (C)(V^2)/2. If the caps were perfectly lossless you wouldn't lose energy by the voltage division, just voltage. Energy is the conserved quantity. So you have a cap with known capacitance in Farads and you charge it to a certain Voltage. This gives you a certain amount of Energy in the cap. Then you discharge into another uncharged cap. The voltage will equalize. Now you have apportioned the original energy between the two, in ratio determined by the ratio of the capacitances, at the new equilibrium voltage. Minus some losses from heating and RF and such. If you know the second capacitance you can calculate the equilibrium voltage, and vice versa.

The hot trick, for me, is to charge caps at high voltage in series, then discharge them at lower voltage in parallel. This is how to extract energy from the Earth's electric field and "down-convert" it to useful power.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 07:29:45 AM
TK:

Are we permitted a little diversion while the tar is brewing?

Scenario 1:  So, you have a 1 kg mass sliding happily along on a magic frictionless plane at 1 m/s.

Scenario 2:  The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 1 kg.  When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.

Scenario 3:  The 1 kg mass sliding happily along at 1 m/s on a frictionless plane hits a stationary mass of 0.5 kg.  When they hit they stick together and keep sliding happily along.

So the question is, what are the energies in scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3?

MileHigh
The energy is of course conserved, if you have a frictionless plane and so on. And the Kinetic energy of a moving mass, not accelerating, is given by E=(m)(v^2)/2, a formula with a familiar form. This is what you start with in all three cases, and this is what you wind up with in all three cases. But the energy is apportioned into the sliders according to their masses. Momentum is conserved too, and momentum is just mv. So you know you must have E initial = E final, and also you must have mv initial = mv final. Velocity is a vector quantity, so it has direction (or sign) as well as magnitude.
So to calculate the resultant velocity after the collision you just substitute in the masses and Einit=Efinal; you know the masses and v init, so it's easy to solve for v final, and get the apportioned energies which go as the square of the velocity.
If all you need is the final velocity just use CofM. Mv init = (M+m)v final.

Unit dimensions are important here. Energy can be in Joules, Dynes, Ergs, even Electron Volts. Mass can be in grams, kilograms, bushels and pecks, and velocity is of course measured in miles per hour or kiloparsecs per generation. This is the SR (systeme Rosemarique).

But it might be simpler to use cgs or SI units like kilograms, meters, and seconds.

(Was this a trick question?)

((Choice of reference frame is important too. Since motion is relative, so is kinetic energy.))
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 08:24:29 AM
Well...

In scenario 1 the energy is 0.5 Joules but in scenario 2 the energy is 0.25 Joules.  What gives?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on March 30, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
snip...
 
Then I read the humbugger work on the other forum. This, plus looking at the NERD video again, made me realize that it was the layout, not the mosfets themselves, that was likely responsible for the oscs.... so I cut random wires and soldered them onto my mosfets, and placed them on some larger heatsinks, not so much for heat transfer but for capacitance. Bingo et voila! Massive Robust Feedback caused by inductance and capacitive coupling in the leads. Sensitive to motion and exact placement.
 
 snip...

 LOL - So it may be bird droppings you're looking for after all, since you had to build a birds nest for best results!!  :P
 
 
Cheers
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 03:06:56 PM
Well...

In scenario 1 the energy is 0.5 Joules but in scenario 2 the energy is 0.25 Joules.  What gives?
How do you figure that?

Mv initial = mv final. (CofM).
Scenario 1: 1 kg moving at 1 m/s = 1 kg-meter/second. Energy  = 1/2 (mv^2) or 0.5 Joules.

Scenario 2: 1 kg mass moving at 1 m/s = 2 kg mass moving at x meters per second. (CofM) Solving for x, we have x = 0.5 m/s.
Solving for energy, we have E = 1/2 (mv^2) or 1/2 (2 x 0.5 x 0.5) = 0.25 Joules... therefore aliens.

But.... you've made a trick. The simple Energy Conservation law applies to _elastic_ collisions. The part about the two weights sticking together and moving off together in the same direction means that your collision is inelastic. Conservation of momentum still applies simply. But the CofE part now needs to take into account the energy lost to sticking together, deformation, heat and so on. The fact that energy does NOT appear to be conserved in the easy naive calculation is the indication that the collision you are looking at is inelastic, and energy is lost to the moving system. If you could account for all the losses (by enclosing the whole shebang in a perfect calorimeter, for example) you would see that energy is still conserved.

This is sort of like all the little resistances and radiations that will suck the energy out of the batt-cap-switch system. A perfect inductor is sometimes easier to understand because we have "touchy feely" experience with storage of energy in a magnetic field and its conservative return, using permanent magnets. We don't have this same fingers-on experience with the electric field energy storage that happens in capacitors, so they seem especially mysterious. It's just another kind of spring, that's all, with its own set of losses that suck energy out of the spring's motion until eventually it's all gone, lost as heat.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 03:36:30 PM
Awesome TK, you got it!

The moral of the story is that when you short one charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor and lose one-half of your energy it's identical to an inelastic collision between a moving mass and a stationary mass.

In both cases you produce heat and that accounts for the 'missing' energy.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 03:54:04 PM
But how do the systems know to lose exactly half their energies to heat, and keep half in KE or capacitance?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Groundloop on March 30, 2012, 05:32:22 PM
Awesome TK, you got it!

The moral of the story is that when you short one charged capacitor to a discharged capacitor and lose one-half of your energy it's identical to an inelastic collision between a moving mass and a stationary mass.

In both cases you produce heat and that accounts for the 'missing' energy.

MileHigh

MileHigh,

How much energy do we loose when we charge a capacitor from a coil?
(The capacitor is a part of the coil, speaking about the LC nature of a coil here.)

First we apply a voltage (and current) over the coil. We remove the voltage
and the voltage over the coil goes to zero while the ampere in the coil goes to infinite.
This happen because the C part of the coil is fully discharged. Then the voltage
polarity flips and the current goes to zero while the voltage goes to infinite.
(Speaking about an no loss ideal coil here.)
In real life we have some resitive losses in a coil so we get a dampened oscillation.

So the question is, how much energy do we loose at each capacitor charge and discharge
for each cycle of dampened oscillation? And what causes the dampening? The coil resistance
or the capacitor charge or discharge losses? Do we loose half of the energy at each capacitor charge
at each cycle?

GL.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 05:49:58 PM
TK:

Quote
But how do the systems know to lose exactly half their energies to heat, and keep half in KE or capacitance?

You mentioned conservation of momentum.  And when we look at a the cap version we know that there is a conservation of charge.  Lo and behold, charge is equivalent to momentum.

Mass akin to Capacitance,  M same as C
Momentum (Mass x Velocity) akin to Charge,  MV same as Q
Velocity akin to Voltage, V same as V

C = Q/V, so Q = CV

Same as M = MV/V, so MV = MV

Conservation of charge or conservation of momentum dictates that 1/2 of the energy must be lost as heat for energy to be conserved.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 07:19:04 PM
Right.. !! And thanks for forcing the clarification. It's been a long time since I've thought about the very basics, and it's always good to review and check one's work and understanding of it.


NOW....


Early tests with the 5 x IRFPG50 in place indicate no major differences from the 830s so far.... except as predicted the frequency of the oscillations has decreased significantly.... significantly in TWO ways -- and in the ability to partially turn on the Q1 transistor.

The first way of course is the magnitude of the decrease, which is as predicted knowing the difference in the mosfet's various capacitances, especially the gate. The second is what it reveals about the NERD team's device.

The delayed timebase of the HP180 is telling me that there are just under 17 periods PER 7 microseconds. Doing the math we get just a tad over 2.4 MHz. Which is exactly twice the 1.2 MHz mentioned on the NERD RATs video.
ETA: Philips says 2156 kHz.

Coincidence? Bizarre unaccounted for exact doubling of the frequency due to more random wire lengths? OR..... another MISTAKE in instrument interpretation by the NERDS?
I don't recall ever seeing an expansion of their oscillation trace so that one could actually determine anything about it.

One more difference I've noticed: It is easier to get the Q1 mosfet to turn on partially by mismanaged offset or frank bipolar pulsing.


So.... Again, I would really like to see _evidence_ in the form of analyzable data, that show the NERDs getting substantial load heating or drain current when the oscillations are occurring and a strict negative-going gate drive pulse is used.


Right now it appears that I can either get realistic load heating by allowing mosfets to turn fully or partially on during the antiphase from the oscillations, OR I can use a strict, non-offset unipolar negative going pulse to insure that only Q2 mosfets are involved and oscillating.

So.... for me to go further I need to know in which mode to operate. The heating mode draws over 1.5 amps on my inline ammeter, the purely oscs mode draws less than 200 mA depending on gate drive amplitude but usually less than 100 mA.

I'm going back over the actual data from the NERDs (scope traces, what dumps I can find) to see if there is real evidence that they are heating their load _without_ drain current flow indicated by a drain trace voltage drop. Any help here would be very much appreciated.

ETA: Heh... when I first stuck all the 5 mosfets in there and turned it on, at first it looked "normal", just like what I'd seen before, until I tried the bipolar pulsing and IT DIDN'T WORK to turn Q1 on !! Frantic scrambles, checking everything... sure enough, I had put Q1 in it socket adapter "backwards" -- so that it in fact WAS in strict parallel with the other four. Insert facepalm here, with lulz.
 ::)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 08:18:57 PM
Scoping across the battery.

Upper A trace is the common mosfet drains, at 100 V/div, baseline indicated.
Lower B trace is across the battery terminals, at 20 V/div, baseline indicated.

Main timebase is 0.2 milliseconds / division , delayed expanded timebase 1 microsecond / division.

Inline DMMs indicate 37.8 V on the battery, 100 mA draw. (Batteries were freshly charged overnight; present no-load voltage 37.9, load temperature (from previous tuning !!) at 110 F.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 08:19:53 PM
Groundloop:

The amount of energy you lose per cycle of oscillation is dependent on the resistance in the wires.  Beyond that, you have a lot of misconceptions about inductors.

I suggest that you read the thread linked below about how coils work when they discharge their stored energy.  I urge you to try to understand it completely.  People on the free energy forums experiment with coils for years without actually understanding how they work.  That should change and the more people that understand the more peer pressure there will be on others to understand.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 08:52:40 PM
Groundloop:

The amount of energy you lose per cycle of oscillation is dependent on the resistance in the wires.  Beyond that, you have a lot of misconceptions about inductors.

I suggest that you read the thread linked below about how coils work when they discharge their stored energy.  I urge you to try to understand it completely.  People on the free energy forums experiment with coils for years without actually understanding how they work.  That should change and the more people that understand the more peer pressure there will be on others to understand.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0)

MileHigh
Don't forget radiation. The LC circuit will also lose power to radiation, like a radio transmitter.

The most common mistake I see on "the free energy forums" is mistakenly thinking that each cycle of an inductive - capacitive ringdown is somehow new or different energy. If you look at the waveform made of the instantaneous multiplication of the current and voltage during an inductive ringdown you'll see a similar waveshape, but the area under the positive loops wrt the baseline represents the "positive" energy flowing during that time period, and the area above the negative loops wrt the baseline the "negative" energy. But it's the same energy ! And it's all contained in the _FIRST_ cycle's time integral. The first negative going excursion will be a little smaller in area as the energy sloshes back, because some of it is lost to resistance and radiation. The second positive cycle's  time integral will be a bit smaller still, ditto. Lather rinse and repeat until the oscillation is damped out totally back to baseline and all that energy _in the first cycle_ is finally dissipated as losses.
Some people close to our hearts have made this mistake (adding up all the energies in successive cycles of a ringdown), and for all I know are still making it.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 09:29:49 PM
At 0:09 of the NERD RATs video we encounter the following tossed salad using all English words:

"Heat dissipated at the resistor element relates to +- five watts."

Does this mean "Power dissipated at the resistor element equalled more or less 5 Watts"? Or "...... positive and negative five Watts"?

See the video here:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)

If "more or less" what is the same symbol meaning in the part saying " On this test the battery supply voltage was at +- 60 volts. "
Here if the supply was at "less than" 60 volts... well, that means one or more of the batteries must have been below 12 volts. Or if the supply was "positive and negative" 60 volts... that's acceptable, barely. But what then of the +- five watts? Negative five watts?

OK... so if the "heat related to five watts, more or less".... just how was this determined? Normally one would simply calculate  I = V/R to determine the current, and P = I^2 x R to determine the power dissipated in the resistor, regardless of how hot it got (because THAT variable is influenced by a lot more factors than just the Joule heating caused by the current.)

Accepting the five watts figure, and working backwards, we find that with a load resistance of 10 ohms, typical of water heater elements, we get I^2 = P/R, or I^2 = 5/10 or 0.5. Taking the square root of both sides, we find I = just over 700 milliAmps is required to dissipate 5 Watts in a 10 Ohm load. Since V=IR, we then find that a DC potential of only 7 volts is actually required to do this, so there must be other things happening in the circuit to prevent the load from "seeing" the 60 volt supply for 100 percent of the time at full strength. Mosfet manufacturers and circuit designers use what is called "PWM" or pulse width modulation circuitry to limit the power throughput of the mosfets in just this manner. Using pulses that only allow the mosfet to turn partially on (as here) or fully on (in a commercial PWM) for short periods of time, the _average_ power, that does the work in a motor for example, is limited and controlled.

Anyway, an average DC current of 700 mA will match their power dissipation figure given. And a fully charged battery pack of 6, 12 volt 60 or 50 or 40 Amp-Hour batteries will be able to provide that for a _long_ time before going below 12 volts each. 5 Watts is 5 Joules PER second. There are (12 x 40 x 60 x 60) or 1 728 000 Joules per battery, times 5 batteries, for a total of 8 640 000 Joules in the 60 volt supply. Dividing by 5 Joules PER second, we find 1 728 000  seconds, or 28800 minutes, or 480 hours, or, at 5 hours per working day, 96 working days, or, at three typical school working days per week, 32 weeks, or, at 18 weeks per semester, almost full time for two semesters, before the batteries need go below 12 volts each.



Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Groundloop on March 30, 2012, 09:38:13 PM
Groundloop:

The amount of energy you lose per cycle of oscillation is dependent on the resistance in the wires.  Beyond that, you have a lot of misconceptions about inductors.

I suggest that you read the thread linked below about how coils work when they discharge their stored energy.  I urge you to try to understand it completely.  People on the free energy forums experiment with coils for years without actually understanding how they work.  That should change and the more people that understand the more peer pressure there will be on others to understand.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1312.0)

MileHigh

MH,

Actually, I do understand how coil works. But you avoided to answer my questions because that would have
shown the readers here that the 50% loss of charging a capacitor does not hold water when you charge
the capacitor from a coil. And I'm NOT talking about a capacitor soldered to a coil. I'm talking about the
capacitance you get by making a coil, many wires in close proximity to each other. And where are my misconceptions?
In a coil of wire you get a LC circuit. The only way that LC circuit can oscillate is by transfer of energy between the
inductive part of the coil and the capacitive part of the coil and back again.

Here is a snip that explains what I tried say:
"If a charged capacitor is connected across an inductor, charge will start to flow through the inductor, building up a magnetic field around it, and reducing the voltage on the capacitor. Eventually all the charge on the capacitor will be gone and the voltage across it will reach zero. However, the current will continue, because inductors resist changes in current, and energy to keep it flowing is extracted from the magnetic field, which will begin to decline. The current will begin to charge the capacitor with a voltage of opposite polarity to its original charge. When the magnetic field is completely dissipated the current will stop and the charge will again be stored in the capacitor, with the opposite polarity as before. Then the cycle will begin again, with the current flowing in the opposite direction through the inductor."

Maybe my English was not good enough but that was what I tried to say. :-)

So a simple LC circuit shows that the 50% loss in charging a capacitor is not true in all cases.

GL.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Groundloop on March 30, 2012, 09:39:47 PM
Don't forget radiation. The LC circuit will also lose power to radiation, like a radio transmitter.

The most common mistake I see on "the free energy forums" is mistakenly thinking that each cycle of an inductive - capacitive ringdown is somehow new or different energy. If you look at the waveform made of the instantaneous multiplication of the current and voltage during an inductive ringdown you'll see a similar waveshape, but the area under the positive loops wrt the baseline represents the "positive" energy flowing during that time period, and the area above the negative loops wrt the baseline the "negative" energy. But it's the same energy ! And it's all contained in the _FIRST_ cycle's time integral. The first negative going excursion will be a little smaller in area as the energy sloshes back, because some of it is lost to resistance and radiation. The second positive cycle's  time integral will be a bit smaller still, ditto. Lather rinse and repeat until the oscillation is damped out totally back to baseline and all that energy _in the first cycle_ is finally dissipated as losses.
Some people close to our hearts have made this mistake (adding up all the energies in successive cycles of a ringdown), and for all I know are still making it.

TK,

I'm aware of the fact that all the energy comes from the first initial charge of the coil.
But that was not my question. See post above.

GL.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 09:47:01 PM
TK,

I'm aware of the fact that all the energy comes from the first initial charge of the coil.
But that was not my question. See post above.

GL.
You asked your question of MH, so I didn't answer it.
My post doesn't say that "all the energy comes from the first initial charge of the coil" although that is true and I'm glad you realize it.
It says that all this energy sloshes back and forth between the coil and the capacitor, that the amount of energy can be calculated by integrating the FIRST positive-going waveform of the instantaneous power trace, and that subsequent integrals of waveform areas will reflect losses (or gains if they increase) that accumulate until all the energy, if not replaced somehow, is lost. I also said that some people will try to add up all the positive going areas and claim that this represents some kind of "energy" figure that makes sense. Actually what must be added up is the _incremental loss_ in area for each period. The sum of these incremental losses is.... well, isn't it obvious?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 10:03:48 PM
All I can find in the first video about heating the Ainslie load is the statement of "6 or 5 Watts" and the apparent citation of a load equilibrium temperature of 51 degrees or so. Without knowing the intimate details of the load's environment this is of course meaningless and useless.

When I tell you that Tar Baby's load is immersed in 250 ml of mineral oil, and I give a time-temperature curve while it's handling current, and a decreasing time-temperature curve when it's not, then you may calculate away and tell precisely how much power Tar Baby's load is dissipating from the equilibrium temperature reached. And you have some chance of being able to repeat the conditions and the measurements for yourselves.

If somebody shows you a coffee pot with a water heater element dangling into it, and a meter that reads 51.1 degrees.... all you know OR CAN KNOW is that the meter reads 51.1 degrees. Other than that, they might as well be making oxtail soup.

Presumably, allegedly, the heat load was calibrated by fiddling around with a DC power supply somehow and heating up the water under the same conditions with DC power, and then the figure of 6 or 5 watts was calculated. I am afraid I have no confidence in the ability of the NERDs to carry out such a complex and "fraught" calibration procedure. But nevertheless I am willing to accept their 6 watts figure... as it supports my case entirely.


Notice the common OU effect: when the effect is first announced it is so powerful that it will boil water, melt lead, vaporise solder, make oxtail soup for an army of RATs.... but when measurements become more precise and harder to ignore, the power levels inevitably decrease, just   like    a       battery         running                out                 of             ju
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 10:17:39 PM
OK, now let's look at this.

I've been running since early this morning on the IRFPG50 mosfets, making the oscillations, no LEDs anywhere in the circuit. So it would take a Chief Inspector Clouseau to determine just where the NERD RATs device is different than mine... but I am assured by the NERDs that Tar Baby is NOT an Ainslie replication.
(Probably for the same reason my Mylow replication wasn't a Mylow replication: it didn't supply free energy. But that's neither here nor there.)

My load is still sitting at 110 F, my inline ammeter indicating 100 mA, my batteries indicating 37.6 volts under the load of driving the circuit. Even with 5 A-H batteries and no recharging this could go on for a while.



If their load was dissipating 5 watts, and that means a current of 700 mA, then if I set TarBaby to produce a drain of 700 mA on the inline meter, and monitor load temperature, what will happen?

And what will it mean? Tar Baby's load is pretty well insulated, unlike hers, and we are also using mineral oil, which has a specific heat of 1.67 as contrasted with water's 4.18. Will Tar Baby be able to reach the lofty equilibrium temperature of 51.1 degrees C? Will Tar Baby melt into a puddle of asphalt, tar, plastic and blackened mosfet bits? Stay tuned to this channel, we'll be back after Your Local News and Weather Together, with traffic reports from outer space.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 10:38:04 PM
My load's now at over 140 F and still climbing, mosfet temps have finally stabilized so I don't have to keep tweaking the drive to keep drain current from going over 800 mA... right now it's at 670 mA....

I mean, if they can get all excited about mere load temperatures, they should really be worried, right about now. My batteries are still at over 12 volts eeeee -ach!

(Q1 runs hot under this condition, so, because I don't have any spare PG50s, I decided to put a small fan directed at its heatsink to try to keep it cool. Probably  not necessary but I'm a belt and suspenders kind of Fuhrer, er, fellow.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2012, 10:57:51 PM
Here's another thing I don't quite understand (although I have my "theories".)

The NERD RATs device has massive heatsinks on all the Q2 mosfets and the Q1 mosfet isn't heat sunk at all, really. And the circuit and the analyses and the sims and my experience live on camera have all indicated that the Q2 mosfets are the only ones oscillating, usually, not really switching,  and the Q1 mosfet isn't working at all, and as I have shown it may even be removed entirely without affecting the "known" parameters of the measurements. And when I set Tar Baby to a current of 700 mA, this is done by allowing Q1 to turn on, and it gets hot.

So why the evidence for hot Q2 mosfets in the NERD device? My Q2s hardly get warm at all , unless I force them to turn on fully and carry a lot of current. And at the same time make Q1 stay off or maybe just oscillating.... hmmmmmmmmm........ exceedingly strange.

(ETA: Load temp at 160 F and slowly rising, drain current 700 mA, batt voltage 36.7, Q1 hot and fan-cooled, Q2s barely warm.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 30, 2012, 11:36:25 PM
Groundloop:

Your first statement in your last posing is correct.  Your quote is correct.  But most of what you stated in your previous posting was incorrect.  Feel free to start a thread about that if you want, TK is back in replication mode.

My final comment would be connecting two caps together compared to an LC circuit is like comparing apples and oranges.  So naturally there will be differences.  The intention for me was to explain how the energy "disappears" when you connect two capacitors together.  It's an "inelastic collision" between two capacitors "moving" at different voltages.

Back to that old RAT magic....

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 12:03:02 AM
Figure 1: Overview, 5 each IRFPG50s on cute little heatsinks of aluminium, anodized..... fan blowing on Q1 mosfet, load heating at +-700 mA. Load is the 10.3 ohm 60 Watt resistor stack in 250 mL mineral oil.

Figure 2: Inline cheapo DMM readings at battery.

Figure 3: Typical scope trace at 700 mA. Top is common drains at 100 V/div, bottom is battery at 20 V/div, normal timebase 0.2 ms/div, expanded TB  1 us/div. Osc frequency about 2.4 Mhz, FG at 1 kHz, gate drive (not shown) offset and amplitude fiddled with to obtain 700 mA on DMM.

Figure 4: Last recorded time and temp... temp still rising, batt voltage still over 36 volts.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 12:07:48 AM
TK:

If I may make a few back to basics comments.  I can't remember if in the last NERD report there was a definitive thermal profiling of the heating element so that they could then extrapolate how much wattage negative oscillation mode was dissipating in the element.  This of course implies the same ambient thermal environment for both the negative oscillation mode and the thermal profiling tests.

If the thermal profiling was done, then the RAT team could say something like, "We measured battery power consumption indicating that 2.5 watts of power was being returned to the battery while our thermal profiling showed that 4.5 watts of real power was being dissipated in the load resistor."  (Hence COP infinity because of the returned power.)  I somehow doubt it because it seems to me that every report that I ever read from Rosemary and her various RAT teams never showed a simple table with (negative) power in vs. power out.

Anyway, unless some kind of thermal profiling is done then just quoting an absolute temperature for a heating element doesn't say too much.  i.e.; the same output power could give you 50, 60, 70 degrees. The variable in play is the thermal resistance to the outside world vis-a-vis the power being dissipated.

I know that you are also heating up mineral oil in a thermally isolated container. That's a different way of doing it with a different set of procedures.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 12:23:47 AM
TK:

If I may make a few back to basics comments.  I can't remember if in the last NERD report there was a definitive thermal profiling of the heating element so that they could then extrapolate how much wattage negative oscillation mode was dissipating in the element.  This of course implies the same ambient thermal environment for both the negative oscillation mode and the thermal profiling tests.

If the thermal profiling was done, then the RAT team could say something like, "We measured battery power consumption indicating that 2.5 watts of power was being returned to the battery while our thermal profiling showed that 4.5 watts of real power was being dissipated in the load resistor."  (Hence COP infinity because of the returned power.)  I somehow doubt it because it seems to me that every report that I ever read from Rosemary and her various RAT teams never showed a simple table with (negative) power in vs. power out.

Anyway, unless some kind of thermal profiling is done then just quoting an absolute temperature for a heating element doesn't say too much.  i.e.; the same output power could give you 50, 60, 70 degrees. The variable in play is the thermal resistance to the outside world vis-a-vis the power being dissipated.

I know that you are also heating up mineral oil in a thermally isolated container. That's a different way of doing it with a different set of procedures.

MileHigh

They claim to have heated water, at a specific rate of heating which allows for no leakage or extra heat: 4.18 Joules per gram per degree C, the specific heat of water. My insulated container is heating mineral oil which requires 1.67 Joules per gram per degree, and it's insulated so it might not take much more than that in actuality.
You are right, though... doing it properly is different from doing it shoddily, and with a different set of procedures.

Meanwhile, in the second part of the video linked above, here is the proof that they are in fact turning on the Q1 mosfet STRONGLY and WITHOUT OSCILLATIONS to produce the higher heating in the second temperature demonstration. AND they are plainly measuring the temperature of a bare element. Those 190 degrees are Celsius degrees, down there !

Note the FG offset. They have ingeniously put the TOP of the trace right on the scope's center graticle scale, and the oscillations on the gate trace below the center, just like all the other gate signal traces they have shown. But look where the offset and the trace zero level marker is (little blue symbol on the left.) They are using a POSITIVE GOING PULSE in this part of the demonstration, and the Q1 mosfet is carrying the load, if they still have the same hookup happening. No wonder they removed one battery. Without cooling, that mosfet at 60 volts and whatever current it's now carrying, it wouldn't last long. So to reduce the current they pulled one battery, without explanation.

Everything to this point could have been an error, a misinterpretation. But THIS is the real smoking gun. Displaying the trace like this, even though the narrator says "positive offst", borders on deliberate conscious deception. And where is the tell-tale mosfet common drain trace? It reveals TOO MUCH so cannot be shown. These people are consciously lying through their oscilloscopes, and MH is worried about my mineral oil load cell.

ETA: In the second shot, of the LeCroy, I think the drain trace is the green trace, #4. Note the nice saaag in the phase NOT oscillating.. it sags towards the baseline. This indicates the Q1 mosfet is at least partially turning on during the NOT oscillating phase.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 12:30:09 AM
TK:

Thanks for the pictures, really appreciated to see the setup.

The AC superimposed on the battery voltage is interesting.  Interesting because I think the NERDs always took it literally and used it in their DSO calculations.

Poynt believed that Rosemary had her battery probe in the wrong place and the AC would not be manifested if your probe was right on the battery terminal itself.  Now I am not so convinced of that in looking at your scope traces because I am assuming that you are measuring the battery voltage properly.  Have you tried a direct connection with your scope probe to the negative terminal of bat 1 and a direct connection to the positive terminal of bat 3?

I would not be surprised if you would see the oscillations like that.  What is likely happening is that the Q2 MOSFET array, acting like an RF waveform generator, is simply superimposing AC on everything.   The batteries probably appear like just another load (not sure of the impedance) to the AC source coming from the Q2 array.  I am pretty sure that the RAT team was completely faked out by that superimposed AC and interpreted it as the literal battery voltage for the DSO crunching.

It's pretty obvious that a big fat battery, kind of like a slow electronic sloth, is not going to react to the buzzing fly of the high frequency AC that is superimposed on it's output.

So the moral of the story is the suggestion that if indeed there is high frequency AC literally on the terminal posts of the batteries, that is a fake-out, and you would have to divine the true battery voltage for purposes of DSO number crunching by filtering it out.  It's garbage data that needs to be filtered out.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 12:50:33 AM
MH asked, "Have you tried a direct connection with your scope probe to the negative terminal of bat 1 and a direct connection to the positive terminal of bat 3?"

Yes, that is exactly how those battery traces were obtained, with another compensated P6047 10x atten. probe. The FG is not connected to the scope any more, except for the FG's "synch" output to the scope's external trigger input.

The rest, I agree with too. The RF/AC/Whatever is _feedback noise_, takes a tiny bit of energy to sustain, is actually _turned off_ by the FG (this is the main role of the FG it seems) and their large heating comes from the same place TarBaby's does: current through an on-state mosfet during the NON oscillating phase. Garbage in, garbage out. And yet, if those scopes had been used properly, one could indeed have resolved the power issues.

ETA: Wait, are we counting the batteries the same way? I assumed you meant from the most negative pole, to the most positive pole, of the whole stack. That's where I have the probe, across the whole 36 nominal volts.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 01:03:16 AM
Quote
ETA: Wait, are we counting the batteries the same way? I assumed you meant from the most negative pole, to the most positive pole, of the whole stack. That's where I have the probe, across the whole 36 nominal volts.

Yes indeed, that's what I mean.

Put it this way:  There is an analogy with being faked out by superimposed AC on the batteries and when someone runs a pulse motor and sees that the battery voltage is creeping up because of a warming up of the electrolyte or whatever.  That MIB response team must endure scenes just like firemen and false alarms.  Eventually the inner thighs get chapped from all of that riding down the MIB pole.

If I had just a measly $0.05 for every time somebody got excited by seeing a rise in battery voltage I would be in piggy bank heaven.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 01:20:24 AM
Oh, this burns me up.
My recent findings are these:

1. Even accepting the "related as +- 5 Watts" as meaning 5 watts of power dissipated at the load resistor, I've calculated that their batteries would last a _long time_, months maybe, before dropping below 12 volts, providing that measly level of power.

2. TarBaby can't heat a load substantially unless some of the mosfets are turning at least partially ON during the oscillations and/or the antiphase non-oscillating periods. When I apply sufficient current to match their "5 Watt" value, I get beaucoup load heating.. but my mosfets are partially on, some of them, and fully on, others.

3. For the "massive" load heating of their resistor to far above the boiling point of water.... their own scope traces and data show that they TOO are turning mosfets fully on during this part of their demonstration, during the antiphase, non-oscillation portion of the waveform cycle.

4. Argentina was boring, although the weather was nice there in the late 40s and early 50s. But America is the Land of Opportunity, and there are still a few good German restaurants in South Texas if you know where to look. And Shiner Bock ....  Sieg p'suffa !!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 01:26:06 AM
Time is 1824, Load is at 235 F and still climbing. I'm trying to maintain that 700 mA level on the DMM; it requires tweaking the FG amplitude once in a while, mostly due to the temperature of Q1, I think.
Batt voltage under the circuit load is 35.1 volts. Looks like I'm not recharging.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 01:52:24 AM
MH said, "Poynt believed that Rosemary had her battery probe in the wrong place and the AC would not be manifested if your probe was right on the battery terminal itself. "

Actually I think that's probably correct. If I get rid of all stray wiring and use as short as possible ground lead on the probe itself, I can cut the apparent amplitude of the oscs on the battery trace by about 2/3. In the ideal world of circuit sims, I'm sure they would go away completely, and in reality too, if you could put your scope and probe inside the battery case.

However.... there are those pesky LED/inductor combos, right at the battery terminal, showing us something... at the very least they are showing us that there is enough power in the AC oscs, not being metered, to light up a few LEDs.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 02:02:44 AM
Ok... so what am I doing wrong? Why aren't my batteries recharging? Tar Baby has the same type and number of mosfets, has the same value (within tolerance) shunt CVR, has the same gate drive settings IN BOTH MODES, oscillating small heat and big load heating modes both, has the same scope traces at the same points, has the same oscillation frequency or exactly twice that frequency....  has the AC component with power in it.... everything except battery recharging.

And the evidence that the NERD RATs have presented to indicate battery recharging is, first, the no-load voltage "alleged" to be at or over 12 volts on the batteries after much use, and second, the spreadsheet numerical integrations and comparisons of scope values from improperly adjusted and employed oscilloscopes. And this by someone who thinks that a Joule is a Watt per Second and that you can put 25.6 million Joules into a liter of water in a hundred minutes without having to call the Fire Brigade.


Why aren't my batteries recharging? I don't think anyone, at this point, can claim that there are significant differences between Tar Baby and NERD. If there are, please describe them and I will be happy to correct them if I can.




Damn... I knew I should have bought that white pegboard.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on March 31, 2012, 02:09:18 AM
TK:

Thanks for the pictures, really appreciated to see the setup.

The AC superimposed on the battery voltage is interesting.  Interesting because I think the NERDs always took it literally and used it in their DSO calculations.

Poynt believed that Rosemary had her battery probe in the wrong place and the AC would not be manifested if your probe was right on the battery terminal itself.  Now I am not so convinced of that in looking at your scope traces because I am assuming that you are measuring the battery voltage properly.  Have you tried a direct connection with your scope probe to the negative terminal of bat 1 and a direct connection to the positive terminal of bat 3?

I would not be surprised if you would see the oscillations like that.  What is likely happening is that the Q2 MOSFET array, acting like an RF waveform generator, is simply superimposing AC on everything.   The batteries probably appear like just another load (not sure of the impedance) to the AC source coming from the Q2 array.  I am pretty sure that the RAT team was completely faked out by that superimposed AC and interpreted it as the literal battery voltage for the DSO crunching.

It's pretty obvious that a big fat battery, kind of like a slow electronic sloth, is not going to react to the buzzing fly of the high frequency AC that is superimposed on it's output.

So the moral of the story is the suggestion that if indeed there is high frequency AC literally on the terminal posts of the batteries, that is a fake-out, and you would have to divine the true battery voltage for purposes of DSO number crunching by filtering it out.  It's garbage data that needs to be filtered out.

MileHigh

It appears that the AC oscillation you have discovered over the battery is the entire argument for the "second part" of the 2 part paper.

Here is an "interesting quote" post #232 from the blog:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/

"This may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection.  The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain.  Which is standard convention.  Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls. And it SERIOUSLY falls.  It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5.  Given a  6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts. At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage.  And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative.  WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING.  In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT.  Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating.  We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle.  But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.
 
 Now.  If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second.  And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery.  For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second -  during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS.  IN A MOMENT?  That's hardly likely.  And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours?  As are ours?  And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time.  DO THE MATH.  It beggars belief.  In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.
 
 NOW.  You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage. Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS.  Well.  It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this.  And in a way he's right.  There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO?  What gives?  Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse.  His own simulation software measures it.  Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH.
 
 But science is science.  And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere.  So.  How to explain it?  How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V?  Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope -  that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply.  Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail +0.5V.  Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material.  WHICH IS REASONABLE.  Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.
 
 OR DOES IT?  If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load.  Over time.  In fact over the duration.  It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating. It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER.  Not even under fully discharged conditions.  So?  Again.  WHAT GIVES?  Clearly something else is coming into the equation.  Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all.  And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY.  Well within their capabilities.
 
 SO.  BACK TO THE QUESTION?  WHAT GIVES?  We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail. And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground.   Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING?  UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit?  Unless the switch is CLOSED.  IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED?  In which case?  Would it not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit?  IF so.  Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit.  It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED.  It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit?  In which case?  We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP.  What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components.  Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source.
 
 It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you.  Sorry this took so long.  It needs all those words to explain this.  The worst of it is that there's more to come.

 
 Kindest regards as ever,
 Rosemary"
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 02:40:44 AM
Facepalm.

Evolve... you do realise what a word salad that post from RA is, I hope.

(But first, I didn't "discover" this RF oscillation, I merely have demonstrated it unambiguously for what it is. It is feedback caused by a little bit of energy ringing back and forth between all those crazy wires and the capacitances of the mosfet and wiring. Circuit designers know this oscillation well and take pains to avoid and eliminate it. In fact if I just put those mosfets up close on TarBaby's board they would probably go away.)

And of course her whole argument about the battery "discharging its whole potential in an instant" in bold and caps is bogusity of the first magnitude.

Come, let us reason together.

The drain trace drops to or near zero in the oscillations because the mosfet is turning on briefly then.
I have demonstrated what happens to the drain trace when a mosfet turns on.

The current is limited by the circuit's resistance.

The Drain voltage drops to zero when the battery is seeing the minimum resistance in the circuit, which is the mosfet's Rdss of 2 ohms plus the CVR of 0.25 ohms plus the 11.11 ohms of the load. Call it 14 ohms, or 15 to be conservative and allow for cliplead crimps and such.
(Actually since it is the Q2 stack that is oscillating the resultant Rdss for the four mosfets in parallel is only 0.5 Ohm. Like that makes a big difference. Well, so instead of 15 ohms use 13.5 ohms in the following calculation.)

Ohm's Law tells us that V=IR, so I = V/R and so a 60 volt battery will push 4 amps of current through a 15 ohm load, dissipating power at the load of P=I^2R, or 240 Watts continuous power if it was on 100 percent of the time. (Here the "load" of course means the entire circuit including the warm mosfets.)

But it's not.

In the single oscillation period, modelling it as a square wave at 1.2 MHz, the pulse is On for less than a half of a microsecond, but call it 500 nanoseconds per pulse.

So the energy in each pulse of the oscillation is actually (less than, because it's not a rectangular pulse) 0.0000005 second x 240 Joules per second, or about 0.00012 Joule, or a bit less than the battery's "whole potential" of over 10 MegaJoules or so. Ten orders of magnitude ! And she thinks her math might sometimes be a "tad out".

And, as we may have determined earlier in the thread, much of this energy is "recycled" into the next period. Only the radiation and Joule heating losses need to be made up by the battery's power to sustain this oscillation.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 02:52:16 AM
Here, Rosemary and the NERD RATs: These ladies might be just what you need, to come up to speed on your circuit math skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUwdvAYEb3Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUwdvAYEb3Q)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees3b0R4rJ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ees3b0R4rJ8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 31, 2012, 02:55:36 AM
Tk
 
 Back in Roses thread, the vid of removing the battery from the circuit. When you removed the battery, there was still oscillation?  What Im getting at is, if you remove everything from the circuit other than the mosfets(the mosfets in Roses schematic sown in the vid, just imagine the transistors as a block with the sig gen and the 2 circuit leads, 1 going up to the inductor and the other lead going down to the shunt), when you power up the sig gen, you still get the oscillations?
 
 If so, then the source battery is not even necessary to get the transistor block to oscillate. So, is it possible that the transistor block is only allowing the source to conduct through the circuit during half of the block oscillation, like the block is just a fast on and off switch? 
 If so, then are we only getting pulsed DC through the heater from the source?
 
 Or, from your experience, is there actually any current flowing back to the battery, or just out flow period?
 
 
 
 MH
 
 We have talked on this cap transfer issue, heat losses, inductors, before. ;]
 
 I can fully understand that if we have a 12v batt connected to a 12v motor with a resistor/resistance(conductors) in series with the motor, that not all the energy being released from the battery is being dissipated by the motor.
 
 Yes, I agree. To have resistance in the conductors or adding a resistance in series in the circuit but wishing that all the source energy were being supplied to the motor, then these resistances are unwanted losses. But Im not sure that heat is the loss in general. You know I have been thinking on this for a while now. ;] Well, still thinking.
 
 If we take a case of where heat is the desired output, are we still losing anything from input to output? Even if we collect the heat from the heater, the battery and the circuits connections?
 
 Here is where Im stuck on losses...
 
 If we have a super conductive battery(all theoretical), and a super conductive buss bar, and we short the battery with the buss bar, we are losing energy even though we ended up with no heat. We could say that we lost it all in the incredible EMP. But I see it as we discharged the super battery by leveling out the charge/potential difference at the 2 terminals of the battery, and thats all. And, that heat and magnetic fluctuations are byproducts.  I know there are other things to consider, but Im just giving my example.
 
 Like TK said about the caps esr.  What if we had(theoretical) super conducting resistor(current limiter). Its purpose is just for loss less current limiting.
 
 If we insert this loss less current limiter in series with the motor and battery, this is where I have my issue.
 
 If the motor and battery connected alone pulls say 10A, and if we add the SC current limiter inline, we now only have 5A going through the motor, did we lose anything? Did any energy taken from the battery not get to the motor, even if the motor had a desired output at 5A?
 
 Now, we have the batt and motor alone at 10A running. We add a resistor(real) in the loop, one with a value that would bring the current down to 5A.  Well, the motor is only going to put out 5A of work. AND, the battery is draining only half as fast as the battery/motor alone at 10A. 
 
 Sooo.  Why would we say we are losing anything?  By adding the resistor in series, to limit the current through the motor, we are not still pulling 10A from the battery and only getting 5A through the motor. Can ya feel where Im coming from?
 
 So, if we have 2 superconducting caps, 1 charged to 10v and the other empty, I can see that if we were to discharge the charged cap into the empty, that they might oscillate forever.  Well what if we rectified the discharge? Would all of the charge from the charged cap end up in the empty one?
 Or if we added our superconducting current limiter in the discharge loop. Would we end up with still 5V in each cap? The same as regular caps? Without losses?  Thats my drift.
 
 Ok, Ill let that cook for a bit. then I will expand on it a bit if these posts are welcome. Been thinkin on this for a while.
 
 Mags
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 03:08:05 AM
@Mags:
With these mosfets, no, I see no oscillations at any gate drive settings with the main battery disconnected.

I don't see any trace of current flowing "back to the battery" either. The power that can light up the LEDs of Doom is bouncing off the inductor and would bounce off the battery too if the inductor wasn't there.

(I am running without these LEDs for the present test, though.)

ETA: My oil is at 250 F at least (the thermometer has gone all the way around and is past zero again....) and batt voltage is 32.3 at 2007 hours. I'm going to switch back to the low-current osc mode using strict negative gate drive, only the Q2 mosfets now, providing 100 mA drain current.

(Scope parameters as before.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on March 31, 2012, 03:38:53 AM
Facepalm.

Evolve... you do realise what a word salad that post from RA is, I hope.

(But first, I didn't "discover" this RF oscillation, I merely have demonstrated it unambiguously for what it is. It is feedback caused by a little bit of energy ringing back and forth between all those crazy wires and the capacitances of the mosfet and wiring. Circuit designers know this oscillation well and take pains to avoid and eliminate it. In fact if I just put those mosfets up close on TarBaby's board they would probably go away.)

And of course her whole argument about the battery "discharging its whole potential in an instant" in bold and caps is bogusity of the first magnitude.

Come, let us reason together.

The drain trace drops to or near zero in the oscillations because the mosfet is turning on briefly then.
I have demonstrated what happens to the drain trace when a mosfet turns on.

The current is limited by the circuit's resistance.

The Drain voltage drops to zero when the battery is seeing the minimum resistance in the circuit, which is the mosfet's Rdss of 2 ohms plus the CVR of 0.25 ohms plus the 11.11 ohms of the load. Call it 14 ohms, or 15 to be conservative and allow for cliplead crimps and such.
(Actually since it is the Q2 stack that is oscillating the resultant Rdss for the four mosfets in parallel is only 0.5 Ohm. Like that makes a big difference. Well, so instead of 15 ohms use 13.5 ohms in the following calculation.)

Ohm's Law tells us that V=IR, so I = V/R and so a 60 volt battery will push 4 amps of current through a 15 ohm load, dissipating power at the load of P=I^2R, or 240 Watts continuous power if it was on 100 percent of the time. (Here the "load" of course means the entire circuit including the warm mosfets.)

But it's not.

In the single oscillation period, modelling it as a square wave at 1.2 MHz, the pulse is On for less than a half of a microsecond, but call it 500 nanoseconds per pulse.

So the energy in each pulse of the oscillation is actually (less than, because it's not a rectangular pulse) 0.0000005 second x 240 Joules per second, or about 0.00012 Joule, or a bit less than the battery's "whole potential" of over 10 MegaJoules or so. Ten orders of magnitude ! And she thinks her math might sometimes be a "tad out".

And, as we may have determined earlier in the thread, much of this energy is "recycled" into the next period. Only the radiation and Joule heating losses need to be made up by the battery's power to sustain this oscillation.

TK,

Sure I realise.

A battery would never survive total discharge in such a manner and remain serviceable, and neither would the circuit, which should be the first indicator that it is not happening. Your approach of systematically working through each variable and building a data set to understand what is occurring is the correct one. You are allowing the data to build the complete picture and using your knowledge and experience to interpret it, as opposed to starting from a preconceived conclusion and manipulating the data to fit.

I am really pleased that you are taking the time to demonstrate and explain what is actually going on with this circuit. Thanks.

RM :)





Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 04:54:29 AM
You're welcome.
Somebody told me what my time and effort might be worth as a hired consultant in these matters, but I'm embarrassed to say just how much it was. Me, I'm just taking a busman's holiday, although it has cost me a couple hundred bux in hardware and running around.


More data:

Using a sensitive moving-coil milliammeter, I have found that there is from zero to about 65 mA of current flowing through the Function Generator in TarBaby's circuit, depending on the amplitude setting and the bipolar/unipolar pulsing. If bipolar pulsing is used the current averaged by the meter is just slightly in the "negative" direction wrt the FG's usual polarity. If unipolar pulsing is used the current direction is in whatever sense the pulse is going.
I don't know if the FG is "sourcing" this current or sinking it or just passing it through. I'd guess that it is acting as a current, and hence power, source, since the output voltage of the FG is drawn down by the circuit's loading.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 05:05:33 AM
Battery voltage continues to fall, down to 34.0 volts with 100 mA on the drain current DMM. This is with strict unipolar negative pulsing, and the load temp also continues to drop, down to 168 F at 2201.

When the battery gets down to 33 volts, I'll stop the test, unplug everything and let them sit until I wake up from my naptime. Then I'll do the DimBulb test, comparing these 3 batteries with the fully-charged one I set aside yesterday.

Oh, what's the point. If they measure below 12 volts they haven't recharged, even conjecturally. And the fully-charged one measures 13.15 volts right now anyway.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 05:30:19 AM
I've looked at the oscillations now with the base FG pulsing set to 100 Hz, 1 kHz, 10 kHz and 100 kHz. At the highest freq there is only time for 10 or 12 so cycles per pulse but the frequency is still that same 2.25-2.4 MHz that it is at 100 Hz pulsation.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 05:35:34 AM
Ok, then, the only difference in performance that I can see (besides youknowwhat) is that they cited , if I recall the narration correctly, a frequency of 1.2 MHz for the oscs and I am finding approximately exactly double that. Yes I know that's an oxymoron, but so is yer brudda.

Is there any data, meaning scope traces or dumps, that support their frequency figure for the oscs?

(ETA: In .99's detailed analysis his sim shows an osc frequency of around 1.125 MHz or so, as best as I can tell, which is much more in line with the Ainslie report. He modeled the inductances right down to the wires connecting the batteries. Why is my osc frequency so high? Do my batteries make the difference?)

ETA2: OK, by adding one through six of those little brown inductors in series at the battery positive terminal I brought the frequency down to 1.5 MHz in steps, so I'm satisfied that it's total inductance that is determining the oscillation frequency.

Will my batteries charge at the 1.5 MHz oscillations, I wonder? One more inductor should bring it down to the "Ainslie Range"... do I dare?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 31, 2012, 05:58:20 AM

(ETA: In .99's detailed analysis his sim shows an osc frequency of around 1.125 MHz or so, as best as I can tell, which is much more in line with the Ainslie report. He modeled the inductances right down to the wires connecting the batteries. Why is my osc frequency so high? Do my batteries make the difference?)
Would the batteries act as a form of capacitance in the circuit, that might affect the freq of operation? But then how did Poynt get that detail worked out in sim.

Would the freq change if you changed the inductor value? Would it change if you had more or less transistors in parallel thus a change in capacitance?

Or, does the input voltage have an affect on the freq of the oscillations?

Are any of these things different in your circuit in comparison?

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 06:10:54 AM
See ETA2 above.
 8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 31, 2012, 06:41:08 AM
Tk

In this vid....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&index=15&feature=plcp

The one we were discussing in Roses thread, at 3:58 or so, you show that the circuit has oscillations "with the battery out".  That is why I asked you about it.
Is the circuit you are using now any different that it wont oscillate with the battery disconnected?

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 07:06:07 AM
You mean, any different besides the 2n7000 mosfets, the 3-volt battery supply and the FG drive at the same level, and the inductor? No, no different.  :P

That is, the oscillations are caused by the same things, but in the 2n7000 case there is enough leakage and AC coupling through the capacitances that the circuit is actually powered by the FG, probably.

The IRFPG50 eats 2n7000s for breakfast, nobody is disputing that. You can't blame the big fellow if he's a bit less sensitive to tickling.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on March 31, 2012, 07:33:03 AM
Im not trying to beat ya down over this. Im just trying to understand it from your perspective. It was just my understanding from that vid of your version of Roses circuit that the circuit still oscillates with the loop of the main circuit broken by removing the battery. In doing so, that means that the inductor is out of the circuit, and so is the shunt, the load also.  So now, being that you say that adding more inductors changes the freq of the oscillations, can we say that we could have oscillations without the inductor, but adding it in just alters the freq?  or....

I suppose if you had the scope across where the the battery was could complete the loop in some fashion. But that would mean that the gen IS powering the oscillations, being that the battery is out of the loop. No?  ;)

Either way, that was my understanding, But if this beefier setup dont, then we have to assume that there are differences in the circuits, even though we might consider them the same. So any alterations to the original circuit could alter the outcome also. Yes? ;)

Mags  ;D
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 31, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
Hi guys,

This is getting juicy by the second .... what will it be  COP<0 ..... COP>0 ..... COP>10 ..... COP>100 ..... COP>1,000 ..... COP>10,000 ..... COP>100,000 ..... COP>1,000,000 ..... COP>1,000,000,000 ..... COP>INFINITY ??  ???

Golly .... I can't wait !!

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 11:18:16 AM
@Mags: Yes,this circuit is sensitive to layout. But not as sensitive to component changes as you might think. The 2n7000 is pretty radical, but there is nearly no difference between the 830 and the PG50 in TarBaby's performance.

If you are trying to tell me that I'm not getting battery charging because I'm not holding my mouth right, or that her mosfets are numbered 1,2,3,4,5 and mine are numbered 4,3,2,1 and 5...... I don't buy it. One learns about a system by perturbing it and watching the result. You change some values or layout in an FM radio and it might not pick up the same station at the same knob settings, but it will still be something like an FM radio in its behaviour.

Now, every circuit Ainslie throws together produces overunity heating and battery charging--- EVEN THE MISTAKES..... but when I build the exact same circuit along with _many variations thereof_ I detect no OU behaviour, and yet I generate the same data. And when even Ainslie's own data is properly analyzed, her OU behaviour either vanishes entirely or turns out not to be so OU at all.

So are you still trying to figure out some feature of the 2n7000 circuit that wasn't close enough to Ainslie's kludges for you to see the point, or are you going to try to tell me that my PRESENT circuit here isn't working because.... because..... because my osc frequency doesn't match hers and my total wire length isn't the same as hers?

OK, I would accept that if we were building ham transmitters or something like that, especially if the design we were copying ACTUALLY WORKED.

But there is no evidence that it actually does, and we are uncovering more and more evidence all the time that it DOESN'T work.

Quote
So any alterations to the original circuit could alter the outcome also. Yes? (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../Smileys/default/wink.gif (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../Smileys/default/wink.gif))
You mean like putting in 4 mosfets backwards for your demo, and finding that you _still_ get the crazy numbers from your spreadsheet? NO. As long as you are putting garbage in to your calculations, you are still going to get garbage out, no matter whether the garbage is GREEN or blue.


Did you miss these two pix?
They are the "smoking gun", the "BUSTED" pictures that show, from their own video demonstration, that they are NOT using a strict negative pulse when they are generating their large heat. They are using a POSITIVE OFFSET that turns on the Q1 mosfet during the NON_oscillating phase of the pulsing, and they have tried to hide this fact "in plain sight" by removing the Drain trace from the display on the Tek and displaying the gate trace the way they do, hiding the fact that it is a positive going pulse by putting the trace entirely at or below center screen.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 11:42:56 AM
Mags said,
Quote
So now, being that you say that adding more inductors changes the freq of the oscillations, can we say that we could have oscillations without the inductor, but adding it in just alters the freq?  or....

The oscillations are feedback parasitic oscillations caused by stray inductances (wire lengths, placement near other wires) and capacitances (wire lengths and placement, component characteristics). Change any inductance or capacitance in the circuit... like by moving wires or even just waving hands around... and the behaviour/performance changes.

It is impossible to build real circuitry without inductances. "I say" that adding more inductors changes the frequency of the oscs. But in contrast to "Rosemary says", what "I say" is often backed up with facts, references and demonstrations. "I say" that adding inductance changes the frequency, and I can demonstrate that it does, if you don't believe me.

Certainly one "can" have oscillations without added extra inductance as the circuit stands. I've demonstrated this over and over. One "can" also eliminate the oscillations by reducing the stray wire inductance and laying the physical circuit out differently. The NERD RATs magic "oscillations" depend on their cliplead kludgy layout which no rational circuit builder would use.

So we appear to have hit upon another requirement or characteristic of Free Energy devices: their layout must be crazy, because if they are laid out rationally, the magic noise that causes the numbers to indicate Overunity performance..... goes away.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 11:51:26 AM
Look... maybe it is only one special batch of mosfets from International Rectifier Corp that have the secret characteristic that causes them to make free energy. A production run was contaminated by Bismuth and Magnesium and they had to stop the assembly line and purge the day's output. But a small batch somehow got through Quality Assurance testing and made it out into the wild. The NERD RATS just happened to get the entire stock of these special mosfets, and no other IRFPG50 that you might get from a vendor will be from this special batch. So no matter HOW they assemble a circuit, it will be overunity when they analyse the spreadsheet numbers.

But the rest of us are screwed from the outset because our PG50s are not from that one special batch.


It's like what makes the difference between an extremely valuable stamp and one that's just pretty paper. If you don't have that tiny little misprint or off-color marking, you are simply out of luck.

(See the logical fallacy called "Special Pleading" for more information.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 03:30:31 PM
Hey Fuzzy
I wonder what Mr. Donovan Martin would have to say about Tar Baby.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 04:01:45 PM
Can anyone tell me why one battery was removed from the 60 volt stack, leaving 48 volts,  for the second part of the NERD RATs video demonstration?

If I recall correctly RA and .99 decided that a 36 volt battery with lower amp-hour capacity would be fine for testing the NERD device. Well... it's pretty clearly not fine for Tar Baby, since we see no evidence of battery recharging.

Of course we haven't yet looked "under the rug" of digital scope dumps to spreadsheets for analysis of improperly obtained data for that evidence. We can only go by the actual state of charge as determined by draw-down tests of one kind or another.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 04:25:52 PM
I've disconnected the battery from the circuit, and scoped across the power _input_ leads to the Tar Baby.

So this is the same probe location for battery monitoring, except with the battery completely gone and the scope set to 2 volts/division instead of 20 or 50 or even 100 v/div as the NERDs have shown.

And then I turn on the FG. Guess what.... the FG's voltage appears at the power input leads, which means -- I think -- that the battery will be seeing the FG as a power supply.

For strictly negative going gate pulses, the FG voltage appearing at the power input leads has a funny shape and not much amplitude. But when the gate pulse goes positive at all, whether from bipolar pulsing and/or a positive offset for the negative pulsing.... this full voltage of the FG's output appears at the power input leads.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 05:12:46 PM
I repeated the Function Generator Battery Charging experiment, except I used one of the 12 Volt, 5 A-H batteries of the Tar Baby. I hooked up the negative lead from the FG to the negative battery terminal. I hooked the positive lead from the FG to the _anode_ of a 1n4009 rectifier diode. I hooked the _cathode_ end of the diode to the positive input of the inline DMM ammeter, and I completed the circuit by hooking the negative side of the DMM ammeter to the positive terminal of the battery.

I turned on the FG and set it for a positive pulse only, 13 volts amplitude, then increased the duty cycle to about 70 percent, which gave me +120 mA indicated on the meter. The FG is charging the battery !! When I started, the battery was at 11.4 volts. Now, after a few minutes, it is at 11.6 volts and slowly very slowly climbing.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 05:53:01 PM
TK:

I think that you built the NERD circuit using the topology in the uploaded diagram below.  You can see if the function generator output goes positive that you get a good conduction path through the internal diodes of the Q2 array so your scope voltage reading makes sense.

If the function generator output goes negative then you have quasi turned on the Q2 array but the drain is open-circuit except for the internal impedance of your scope probe of about 1 Mohm.  So that means that the low source voltage from the function generator on the Q2 source pin is "imaged" on the drain pin.  But to see any "action" in theory you have to have a good conduction path on the drain side, which you don't.  (more below)

If you ever try it again you should try the same setup but also see what your scope reads if you also put a 100k, 10k, or 1K resistor in parallel with the scope probe.  You can assume that when the function generator output is high or low that you will see the fg voltage across the resistor load.

For the fg output going high, it's due to the diode in the Q2 array.

For the fg output going low, the fg now actually powers the Q2 MOSFET switch.  Just "move the fg counter-clockwise around the loop" in your mind and you can see that the ground of the fg is at the high potential, pumping current through the added resistor, through the switched-on Q2 array and the back to the signal lead of the fg, which is at the lower potential. Call it the "new ground."

Going back to normal 36-volt operation, the fg cannot recharge the batteries.  If the fg output is high, it obviously doesn't have the EMF required to power the battery stack.  If the fg output is low, it acts like one more battery in series with the battery stack.  That can't recharge the battery stack, it can only contribute to the power output of the battery stack.

Magluvin:

Sorry but I could not make head or tail of 95% of your posting about the motors and stuff, and it would be better on another thread.

MileHigh

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 06:41:32 PM
You can certainly see how the circuit that TK built is functionally equivalent to the NERD RAT circuit.  The first small build that TK did with the 3-volt battery pack was kind of a "proof of concept" circuit to show how easily MOSFETs will oscillate.  At least that's how I see it.

It's been stated before and it's worth stating again that MOSFET circuits are highly prone to oscillation.  A circuit designed to be an amplifier and a circuit designed to be an oscillator are very similar.  So when you use MOSFETs in some kind of switching application that has inherent amplification, it's not in the least bit surprising that the circuit will start to oscillate.

What frequency the circuit oscillates at is mostly academic.  The core of the design will oscillate.  Sometimes all that it takes is a bit of thermal noise, which is everywhere in circuits, to tickle the MOSFET input and start the oscillation.  Different lengths of wire or other inductive or capacitive effects will influence and change the oscillation frequency, but that does not change the fact that at the core of the circuit there is an engine running, powered by the power source, that is doing the oscillation.

So what we are looking at has not fundamentally changed from day one.  It's a circuit that takes power from a set of batteries and burns off that power in an inductive resistor, a MOSFET oscillator, and other sundry components.  The fact that the MOSFET oscillator runs in the 1-4 MHz range with harmonics that extend up into the tens of MHz means that the whole circuit is "buzzing" with a superimposed high-frequency AC voltage signal that makes measurements very difficult to do.

You can't forget the nonsensical aspects of the circuit either, with the function generator in the main current loop when it's outputting a negatively offset signal.  That means that the function generator is both contributing to the powering of the circuit in tandem with the battery array, and at the same some time dissipating some of the power running trough the circuit via its internal 50-ohm resistor.  Also, the actual square wave signal being output by the function generator, under normal negative offset oscillation mode, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with controlling the ON/OFF switching of the current going through the inductive resistor.  The function generator is just acting like an "enable oscillation - disable oscillation" device.  It's somewhat bizarre.

The bottom line is that there is nothing here at all.  It's all just a giant misunderstanding by Rosemary where she is clinging to her DSO data capture and refuses to wake up and look at the data coming at her from all other directions stating that the setup is under unity.  If you had somebody that was really skilled they would be able to use the same DSO on the same circuit to capture good data which would show that the circuit was under unity.  Recognizing that the battery voltage has to be filtered to get rid of the superimposed AC voltage waveform would be an example of taking the proper steps to make proper measurements.

Rosemary is clearly not a skilled enough person to use the DSO properly nor does she understand how electronic circuits work beyond the most basic level.  The same thing applies to her NERD RATs.  How the circuit actually works was discovered _after_ she and her team worked on it for months and months and then presented their paper.

If you know how to use a screwdriver and a spanner you can't then just present yourself to a Formula One race team and proclaim that you want to be the lead mechanic with the pit crew.  That's a valid analogy for Rosemary and it's just as ridiculous.  She can pick up a scope probe and push a button on a DSO.  So what, that means nothing.   This notion that you are not "encumbered" when you are clueless with respect to electronics and science is simply ridiculous.  Blind ignorance does not give you the ability to have "new insights" that others with education and training are blinded to.  In the vast vast majority of the cases, all that you end up doing is deluding yourself.  That is clearly the case here.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 07:03:11 PM
I just want to emphasize an important point again.

TK's circuit has the same topology as Rosemary's and uses the same MOSFETs and it oscillates in the same manner.

That's enough evidence to give us convergence and state that his replication is a valid replication and the measurements that he makes are going to be analogous to the measurements that could be made on Rosemary's circuit.

The "cult of replication" on the free energy forums is normally very counterproductive.  People say things like, "Your replication is not valid because my coil is 220 turns but your coil is 200 turns."  These are mistakes coming out of ignorance.  In almost all cases, minor deviations like that are trivial and do not affect the operation of the circuit.

In the worst case, this cult of replication is used by the fraudsters.  Somebody makes a fake free energy claim and 20 people try to replicate it and fail.  The fraudster says "your replications are not 100% accurate" and people seem to accept this and move on.  It's the wrong way to think about these things and you are letting the fraudsters take advantage of you when you do this.

So, TK has a valid replication unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.  Most objections will be nonsensical, analogous to the 200 turn vs. 220 turn coil example above.

So if you are curious, keep on watching this thread.  TK is deconstructing and demystifying the RAT circuit and that's a good thing and people can learn at the same time.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on March 31, 2012, 07:08:35 PM
Hey Fuzzy
I wonder what Mr. Donovan Martin would have to say about Tar Baby.

Hi Tk,

I have been trying to find out exactly that, but finding him through all these shadow companies he's with and for him to actually e-mail me back is something else .... at one time we worked together I thought.

Here is just a few web sites he's with ...   ???

http://www.donixes.co.za/

http://donixes.webs.com/

http://cncwings.tripod.com/
http://cncwings.tripod.com/options.html

You would think he would be excited to share the results of the testing and evaluation of the NERD RAT experimental device he is involved with the published and supported "claim" of COP>INFINITY, even a COP>1,000,000,000 ..... COP>1,000,000 ..... COP>100,000 ..... COP>10,000 ..... COP>1000 ..... COP>100 ..... would be nice to show the world unless he doesn't support the "CLAIM".

I'm still e-mailing him and have been sense March 26 to get some answers hopefully it's not like at Energetic Forum where Rosemary promised he would help and "ddmdragon" ( Donovan ) made one post and left http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4676-rosemary-anslie-magnetic-rosetta.html#post66770 ..... this could be a indication of his commitment from years ago.

Onward and Upward !!!  Maybe not a COP>INFINITY ..... but a COP>1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00010 ??  :o

FTC
 ;)

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 08:31:39 PM
While I don't think it makes any difference for MH's excellent analysis, I actually am using the topology in the diagram below. The only difference is where the FG's "negative" lead is connected. Sometimes I put a 0.33 Ohm resistor in series with the FG+ connection to the gate. Sometimes I also move the FG's "negative" to the common ground point, which makes more sense to me. But usually I have it as below, on the transistor side of the CVR.

I can't find anything objectionable in the MH analyses above. I was surprised, though, that the LEDs could extract as much power as they do from the AC component while the DC is passed through the small inductance of 18 inches of wire or the brown inductor. I'm wondering if there could be some weird effect where the FG's output voltage doesn't have to be greater than the entire battery voltage to charge it. In other words, could the circuit be acting as a form of "joule thief" or boost converter to allow energy transfer from the FG's lower voltage to the battery, in the dynamic operation of the circuit?

I mean, I'm just tossing ideas around that might be able to explain battery charging conventionally, IF it turns out to be demonstrated.... which I still doubt very much.

Meanwhile, the battery that I AM charging with the FG, using the rectifier diode, has now reached 11.7 volts and is still climbing. So I'm disconnecting it, and going on with preparations for the Dim Bulb Test.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 08:44:48 PM
Figure 1: Four NOS, non-Chinese, type 1157 automotive brake/taillight bulbs, 12 volt, twin filament, wired in parallel, with leads for attaching to batteries.

Figure 2: The test batteries. All of these were charged two days ago using the automatic automotive battery charger until it reported that they were fully charged by shutting off. After settling, all the batteries measured about 13.2 volts no-load. 3 were selected and used for running the Tar Baby, oscillating, heating a load, etc. last night, until the voltage dropped below 33 volts total. One of these was used in the FG charging experiment and raised to 11.6 or 11.7 volts that way. The fourth battery was set aside and not used before the upcoming test.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on March 31, 2012, 09:46:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps)


Sigh.

 :-[
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on March 31, 2012, 10:07:16 PM
TK:

Sublime... I am at a loss for words.

Instead I made two clips to continue the technical discussion.  I couldn't find my white lab coat though.  Sigh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYj93Qg6Rc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IP8g7-VPn4

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 12:16:35 AM
Well, I think there are several conclusions that we can draw now.

1. It's clear that a battery can be charged by a function generator thru a diode, if the FG is powerful enough. Yawn.

2. Tar Baby sure didn't achieve COP INFINITY. Not even close. But did it achieve COP>1 ? In other words, did the batteries run down less fast than they would have, running Tar Baby as compared to DC power at the same average level? I'm saving that one for later on.
Tar Baby didn't charge its batteries at a level sufficient to maintain a "full charge", that's for sure.

3. The Berd is a Werd. Definitely.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 12:36:50 AM
There is another broad conclusion that may be drawn here, even before testing is complete.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

In other words, any claimant for an overunity prize should really expect to have to go through at LEAST this much trouble, public documentation, experimentation, and public testing if they seriously expect consideration. One must be prepared and WILLING to go through all this process, instead of just providing word salad that scrambles existing convention with regard to mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering. This is especially true if the claimant has a long history of error, arrogance, and past unsupported claims. When the claimant refuses to cooperate with reasonable testing protocols, nor to have rational and fruitful discussion about the device or the claims, comprehensive testing becomes even more important IF the award is really to be pursued in earnest. And when the claimant refuses to retract conclusions based on demonstrably wrong calculations, resorts to irrelevant ad hominem abuse, denies the reality and impact of independent work concerning the claims, and continues the pursuit of the award nonetheless.... there is something seriously wrong with the process.

It is my humble opinion that all of the above "due diligence" that I have shown should be accomplished by the claimant FIRST, before applying for any prize or trumpeting great news like COP INFINITY, and this diligence should indeed be open to inspection on request. Obfuscation, denial, delay, ridiculous testing conditions and requirements... all of these things should be firm indicators that the claimant can NOT in fact support the claims, and probably knows it.
Whoever is responsible for administering any prizes or awards should require some minimal level of REAL proof along with any application for consideration. Some word salad essays and a video riddled with error and prevarication do not rise to the level necessary for consideration.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 12:51:33 AM
Continuing on: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, sometimes even more so than bland ignorance.

The NERD RATs, having never actually TESTED their battery's state of charge, base their claim of recharging on the power calculations measured by their scopes and calculated by their spreadsheets. The data is coming from digitally sampled repeating waveforms of a fixed frequency.  The math performed on this data must be done correctly if it is to be accurate, but just as importantly the data must be COLLECTED properly. Since power calculations depend strongly on the temporal relationship between the measured current and voltage signals, some things must be considered before just hooking up probes and pushing buttons.

The Tek Scope Guru says:
Quote
Measuring AC Power with Advanced Math                   Question: How do I measure the AC power using the advanced math capabilities – I wanted to use the equation p = |V| x |I| x cos(Phase( V-I)) but don’t seem to get the correct answer.
Answer: Just to recap, it looks like you are making a power quality measurement on the input to your power supply.  To do that, you are measuring voltage and current on the input, then performing math to determine the Real Power from the measured Apparent Power.
Whenever you are making power measurements, it’s critical to deskew your probes.  Your voltage and current probes have different propagation delays, and even the pathways behind each channel of your oscilloscope have different delays and gain.  The differences in pathway for the voltage measurement and current measurement introduce timing errors and amplitude errors in to your power measurement, since power is the product of voltage and current. This, of course, will distort your phase measurement and affect your results.
To deskew your probes, you’ll need to adjust the delay and offset of each oscilloscope channel to compensate for the differences in pathways.  To do this, you can use a deskew kit.  This deskew kit provides a fixture and pulse generator.  The deskew pulse generator provides a stimulus signal to the deskew fixture which is then routed to the voltage and current probes.  The propagation delay and gain of each path can then be adjusted using the channel adjustments (deskew and offset) in the scope to align the two waveforms.
Or, if you are using automated power analysis software like DPOPWR or DPO4PWR/DPO3PWR, you can use automated deskew in the software.  The static de-skew function automatically adjusts the delay between selected voltage and current channels based on an embedded table of propagation times for the probes.  Or, each probe may have its propagation delay embedded in its internal memory which the oscilloscope reads.  This technique offers a quick and easy method to minimize de-skew.  DPOPWR even provides an automatic deskew function in which the scope adjusts the waveforms for you.
Automated power analysis software will also automatically measure power quality parameters like apparent power, reactive power and real power (also known as true power) for you.
For more resources on power measurements, I’d suggest looking at www.tektronix.com/power (http://www.tektronix.com/power).

In an earlier thread I mentioned the problem of probe skew and posted a link to a Tek or Agilent document concerning it; this issue also came up when considering the free energy claims of Steorn. It is a critical issue and the higher the frequency concerned, the more critical it is.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the NERDs have considered probe skew or have dealt with it in any way. It can easily reverse the sign of a calculated power signal, especially one that is collected from a repetitive noise source subject to sampling errors and aliasing.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 01, 2012, 03:50:29 AM
TK:

I have a few ideas for you if you start probing around the circuit.

I am picking up again on what PW stated about the signal across the 0.25 ohm CSR being pure AC because it's AC coupled to the Q2 MOSFET array through the Q2 gate capacitance.

Also, I am still confining my discussion to "normal negative offset oscillation mode."  I am also going to reference the schematic that I reposted a few posts back because it is easier for me.  So what I say may not apply or need to be slightly tweaked relative to your setup.

So let's look at the Q2 array as an oscillator, or call it an "oscillation engine."  We are going to keep the discussion somewhat simplified and not cover every single signal path for the sake of clarity and simplicity.

So the Q2 engine takes in some average DC current from the drain and that same average DC current must exit by the source and then flow into the function generator.

So you have three primary agents competing for the supplied (battery + function generator) power;  1) the inductive resistor,  2) the Q2 MOSFET oscillator engine, and 3) the 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator.  This implies that the higher the power allocated to the MOSFET oscillator, the higher it's effective impedance, and the higher the voltage drop it sustains relative to the other two agents.  So if the MOSFET oscillator is especially energetic, two effects will happen.  The first effect is that the total impedance of the full loop will increase, and there will be less power drawn from the (battery set + function generator).  The second effect is that if the MOSFET oscillator is especially energetic, then it is "stealing" the available power from the inductive resistor and the the 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator.

In terms of the Q2 MOSFET oscillator itself and it's power consumption, you can divide that into two parts, 1) resistive dissipation producing heat, and 2) the export of AC power into the rest of the circuit via the Q2 gate output port.

Continued in part 2....

MileHigh

P.S.:  I need to modify my highlighted statement above.  I was thinking that if you have three impedances in series, the highest impedance is the one that sustains the higher voltage drop and thus consumes the higher proportional power.  This is not necessarily the case here.  The impedance of the Q2 MOSFET array is an unknown and can be higher or lower.  The amount of power drawn from the battery will respond accordingly and I can't say that the impedance of the Q2 array will "go higher" if it is drawing more power.  All three power consuming agents have to be considered to know what will happen with respect to the division of supplied power.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 01, 2012, 03:50:55 AM
Part 2.....

So, let's look at a simplified model for the MOSFET oscillator itself.  The power input is the average current + voltage drop between the drain and the source.   So in simplified terms the drain-source is the pair of terminals that represent the power input of the MOSFET oscillator.
 
 The power output of the MOSFET oscillator is the four parallel and connected gate terminals.  These are capacitively coupled to the actual MOSFET oscillator engine.  So, the output from the MOSFET oscillator is a 2 MHz AC output voltage via the gate terminal.  How much AC power is output through this terminal is dependent on the AC source impedance, the AC voltage, and the AC load impedance.
 
 I hope that you are following here, I am kind of describing the circuit with a bit of a level of abstraction in the hope that it connects with yourself and some of the readers.
 
 Finally, let's look at most of the AC power output paths that form the AC load on the MOSFET oscillator gate output:
 
 1.  The Q2 gate output to the 0.25 ohm CSR to ground.  This where you have already observed pure AC with your scope.
 
 2.  The Q2 gate output going across the Q1 source-gate capacitance, through the 0.5 ohm resistor, through the 50 ohm resistor in the function generator, then to the negative potential supplied by the function generator.
 
 3.  The Q2 gate output going across the Q1 source-drain capacitance, through the inductive resistor, and then to the positive terminal of the battery set.  (This may be the path that explains the AC voltage that we see superimposed on the battery voltage)
 
 4.  The Q2 gate output going across the Q1 source-drain capacitance, and then to the Q2 drain.  (This might be part of the feedback mechanism to sustain the oscillation)
 
 So, that's a "simplified" model for the Q2 MOSFET oscillator.  The fact is that we know that there is AC on the Q2 source also, and that also will be disseminating AC power through more signal paths.
 
 The skinny from this too-long posting is that I showed a mechanism for superimposing an AC voltage signal on the battery positive terminal.  There is a clear path between the Q2 MOSFET oscillator and the battery positive terminal.

 I said before that this whole circuit was buzzing with high-frequency AC, and hopefully this posting helped explain that.
 
 MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 04:30:23 AM
I think that's clear enough.

Meanwhile... how efficient is the Tar Baby as a heater?  In other words, how much of the power that the device draws, is actually dissipated in the load, where it can do useful work, and how much is "wasted" by dissipation in heating the mosfets and resistors and RF radiation?

Once the batteries are all recharged, I'll set Tar Baby up with strict negative-going pulses on the gate, and maximum attainable Q2 drain current as measured by the inline DMM, which for me seems to be something under 200 mA. I'll record a time-temperature curve if I can stay awake. My load cell is pretty well insulated so it might not reach equilibrium temperature in a reasonable time, or it might. We'll see. Regardless, I will then take a straight DC power supply and provide the load with the same average current as read on the DMM, and record the time-temperature data. Then I'll plot the curves for comparison.
Since I only have one load and it will have to cool back to ambient between runs, this will take a day or two to complete.

Meanwhile, I encourage the NERD team... if, that is, all the RATs haven't yet abandoned ship .... to hurry up and get on with their own testing, to refute my results and show that they actually do have what they have claimed so loudly in glowing bold CAPS to have.

(My goodness... am I about to lose my membership in the Rabid Debunkers and PseudoSkeptics Society (RDPSS)? What kind of a thing is that for a Rabid Debunker to say... encouraging testing and publication of results.... ? Everybody knows that a RDPSS member in good standing must SUPPRESS all discussion, DELETE all possible evidence of OU, COVER UP and DISCOURAGE testing that shows OU, and DIVERT INTEREST onto other topics, like Nitinol motors and LENR. I guess I had better watch out, or the MIBs will take away my black Buick.....)

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on April 01, 2012, 08:50:50 AM
snip..
 I guess I had better watch out, or the MIBs will take away my black Buick.
..snip
You've got a black Buick ? You lucky B...... LOL

Seriously though TK, I like your methodology.

One thing that still mystifies me a bit, is the the idea of true AC manifesting in the circuit. Varying DC superimposed onto the supply rail is easy to picture in this circuit, but the dual LED experiment you carried out seems to indicate true AC.

This intrigues me a little, because the polarity of any Collapsing EMF during the off time of the pulsing of the inductive resistors is such that current would not normally flow though the load (even with mosfet body diodes) as a result of the current/magnetic field collapse.

The polarity of the resultant EMP is such that a diode would need to be across the load in flyback arrangement, but then the current from the collapse event would still be in the same (uni) direction through the resistors, as the supply.

It's easy to picture actual BEMF from a motor/rotor inducing a current opposite to the supply via the body diodes of the mosfets, and therefore superimpose true AC, but there is no such motor/rotor in this circuit. I find that true AC seems to be present as opposed to just varying DC quite interesting.

Thanks for your presentations thus far !

Cheers
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 08:53:00 PM
Thanks, hoptoad, I'm glad you find it all entertaining.   ;D

The NERD RAT team have been using the scope data dumps of the voltage drop across the CVR (equivalent to the current through the CVR by applying Ohm's law to the resistance value and vdrop) and the voltage on the mosfet drains to calculate their power data, have they not?

That is, they are taking the peaks of the oscillations on the mosfet drains, times the current at those times, and taking the time periods and multiplying these together to get a quasi-time-integration of a power signal, I think. Am I right about this?

So they are looking the area under the curve, formed by the peaks of the oscillations on the drain trace wrt the baseline of that trace. Am I right about this?


If so..... there is a minor problem.   8)




Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 09:38:23 PM
As I've noted before, in the second part of the NERD demo, they are using a POSITIVE OFFSET of their FG signal which as we know will turn on Q1 during the non-oscillating phase of the signal from the FG.

Here's the proof: an explanation and analysis of the LeCroy toy oscilloscope screen shot. Please download and display the figure so you can refer to it as you read the captions.

1. This is the trace of the Voltage Drop across the CVR. The value of the CVR is nominally 0.25 Ohm, so the Current will be, by Ohm's Law, I=V/R, or I = V/0.25. So the Current, in Amps, will have the value of 4 x the indicated voltage displayed by this trace. The part of the trace indicated by the red line is about 1 1/2 minor divisions ABOVE the baseline level, indicating current flow during the non-oscillating portion of the trace. Flow in the normal direction, giving a positive voltage drop across the CVR.

2. The baseline zero voltage level of the CVR trace.

16. The channel setting for the CVR trace. It is displayed at 2.00 volts per division. Therefore each minor division is 2/5 of a volt. Therefore, the voltage level indicated in (1) above is about 3/5 of a volt, and this corresponds to 12/5 Amp or 2.4 Amps. THIS IS WHERE THE HEAT IN THE ELEMENT IS COMING FROM, not from the oscillation portion of the trace at all.

3. The level of the Battery Trace during the NON-oscillating phase.

4. The zero baseline marker below the number 2. Since this trace is set to 100 V / div, we can see that this trace is sitting at battery voltage, and the "means" in the parameters box agree. Therefore, during the NON-OSCILLATING portions of the trace again applying Ohm's law, we find V=IR, or R=V/I, or R(total) = 50/2.4 = 20.8 Ohms. The resistance of their load is 11.1 Ohms, the Q1 mosfet's on-state resistance is 2 Ohms, the CVR is 0.25 Ohms, the cliplead connections and wires add some resistance.... and the initial figure of the 2.4 amps current read off the scope trace by me here a year later isn't all that precise. THEREFORE, the figures given by Ohm's Law and the actual circuit measurements are in nearly exact agreement. The circuit is dissipating (2.4)x(50)= 120 Watts during the NON-oscillating phase of the signal, and (2.4)(2.4)(11.1)= 64 Watts of that is getting to the load itself and the rest is wasted heating the Q1 mosfet and the CVR and the other resistances in the circuit during the NON oscillating portion of the gate signal.

5. The level of the GREEN trace, the common mosfet drains, during the NON oscillating portion of the signal.
6. The zero baseline, the little green line below the number "4".
8. The channel setting, 100 Volts per division.
10. The zero baseline level again.
11. Where the "50 volt" level... the battery voltage level.... would be on that trace at 100 v/div.
12. One full division above the baseline, or 100 V, for comparison.
Note that this is the common mosfet drain signal, or alternatively the load itself. We see that during the NON_oscillating part of the signal, the voltage sags well below the battery voltage and even sags below horizontal during the individual periods themselves. We know that when the mosfet is OFF the voltage here should be HIGH, at or just below the battery voltage. But it's not. Therefore the mosfet is at least partially ON here, as corroborated by the CVR trace.

13. The channel setting for the Gate Drive Signal trace, 20.0 V/div.
14. The baseline or zero volts level of the Gate Signal trace, just below the number "3".
15. The top level of the Gate Signal trace, sitting at least 1 minor division ABOVE the zero volt baseline indicated at (14). This is indicating a POSITIVE level of at least 4 Volts during this non-oscillating portion of the cycle. This is enough to at least partially turn on the Q1 mosfet.

9. The "math trace" channel setting: 500 VxV (not W) per division, and the function being performed: the simple multiplication of the CVR _raw_ trace and the battery voltage trace. Since these are both voltages, the scope knows that the display then will be V V, or the product of two voltages. Had a current probe been used here, as I have illustrated in other videos using a similar LeCroy scope, the scope WILL display V A or even Watts here. But the simple math being used by the presenters does not account for Ohm's Law on the CVR.... therefore the math is wrong. Where the presenter uses the displayed "-5.29 V V" figure  (item 7) as "Watts" he is simply talking garbage.

In short, the circuit is NOT giving anything like the bogus figures they have calculated from the scope using the oscillating portions of the waveform.

It is dissipating 120 Watts during the NON-oscillating portions, of which less than half is heating the resistor load. Very little or no power is actually passing during the oscillations.

In other words, this ENTIRE DEMONSTRATION is a combination of ignorant error, arrogance, mendacity, and outright DECEPTION (the way they chose to display the Gate drive signal on the TEK, discussed earlier).

I hope somebody will check my math and interpretation of the scope screen. Somebody OTHER than the NERD RATs, I mean.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 09:43:26 PM

(snip) they are taking the peaks of the oscillations on the mosfet drains, times the current at those times, and taking the time periods and multiplying these together to get a quasi-time-integration of a power signal, I think. Am I right about this?

So they are looking the area under the curve, formed by the peaks of the oscillations on the drain trace wrt the baseline of that trace. Am I right about this?


If so..... there is a minor problem.   8)


And this illustrates just what the problem is with doing it that way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU)

So if you are integrating the area "under" a drain trace oscillation signal.... You are actually integrating an "off" signal, over the time periods when the mosfet is OFF and not conducting current to the load.

At least I think that's how it works.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 10:46:48 PM
Their OWN raw data don't even support their claims of load heating efficiency and battery recharging. The scope data as I have shown is bogus. Look at the channel means on the battery and the current. They are both positive. Yet the scope calculates a negative mean for the multiplication of the two channels. This is the NUMBER ONE sign that the scope is doing GIGO.

The NUMBER TWO sign is that the scope is not performing Ohm's Law on the voltage drop across the CVR, it is simply multiplying the raw voltage data together. Not only is the sign of the resultant math wrong, but so is the magnitude, because the voltage numbers that are given by the CVR trace need to be multiplied by 4 to give the current in Amperes, because of that 0.25 ohm CVR.

Now you know why I like to use a 1 Ohm CVR when possible.

All of this leaves me feeling very strangely. What does it say about the researchers making the claims? What does it say about the community of people looking at and BELIEVING her claims without critical analysis? The raw data that are available are sufficient enough to quash the claims altogether, just in those two scope shots that I have analyzed. And they have been available for a YEAR. I think .99 and MH have taken a look and pointed out some of the inconsistencies, but nobody listened to them.

COME ON PEOPLE, if you are going to Save the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil...... you really need to polish your skills and knowledge a little bit, to avoid getting suckered into fraud hoax lying mendacity like the Rosemary Ainslie claims of COP INFINITY.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 10:55:43 PM
@Fuzzy:
Is Donovan Martin a blood relative of Rosemary Ainslie? I str that her "son" or maybe "grandson" was involved in posting or working with her at one time some years past. Is Donovan Martin Ainslie's son? Whatever happened to that son's involvement, I wonder.
I suppose Martin has still not deigned to answer your questions.

May I suggest the following: Send him a certified, registered letter, containing a reprint of the papers bearing his name, a link to the NERD thread and to this one, and a cover letter explaining what is up, also mentioning the "legal action" that Rosemary is threatening you with. Sign your letter with the honorific "Esquire".... that will get his attention for sure.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 01, 2012, 11:09:11 PM
TK:

I read through your analysis and followed the annotated scope shot and it looks great.  Having two computer monitors really helps.  You can't go back when you add a second black monitor to your setup.

It's funny because it's raining on Rosie's parade so it may as well pour.  I can't tell you how many times I have felt frustration when Ms. Posie would "throw up" a screen shot of a DSO capture in a thread posting to advance her argument with no indication of what each colour meant, no summary of what each trace was doing, etc.  When I read her original report I had to make the mental effort to flip back and forth through the pages to remember what everything meant.  But after that whenever she would throw up a DSO capture my brain would simply turn into mush because of the excessive amount of work it would take to figure out what the image actually meant.  Rosie, your DSO scope shot presentation skills were nil, and I bet you the vast majority of readers ignored your scope shots just like me.  A mini rant!

I just will add some colour commentary to what you said referencing some of the recent things that have been discussed.

Look at the top yellow trace across the current sensing resistor.  You will notice that the oscillation is perfectly symmetrical about the ground reference as shown by TK's item #2.  It's perfectly symmetrical about ground because it's AC-coupled and coming from the Q2 MOSFET oscillator.  That portion of the trace is not even an indicator of the battery current.  That's because during negative offset oscillation mode, the battery current is flowing through the function generator.

Look at the mauve trace below the yellow trace which represents the battery voltage.  The massive AC voltage waveform that you see on the battery voltage is not real, it's a mirage.  We simply know that the batteries would not do this with 100% confidence.  One possible scenario previously discussed was that the Q2 MOSFET oscillator is responsible for this.  We know that there is an AC-coupled path between the Q2 MOSFET oscillator and the battery positive terminal.

In addition, because of the very high speed switching, the inductive energy stored in the interconnect wires themselves can cause AC voltage to be superimposed on the battery voltage.  Notice how the AC voltage is not symmetrical about the nominal battery voltage shown by TK's item #3 in the annotated scope capture.  Whenever the Q2 MOSFET array is in the process of switching off while in oscillation mode, that switching off will result in the magnetic field collapsing in the battery interconnect wires.  That will generate a positive voltage bump or spike.  That may explain why we see that the AC waveform superimposed on the battery voltage is positively offset.

Note how in Rosemary's report they just throw a bunch of DSO captures at you and make no attempt whatsoever to explain them.  The only thing that they want you to look at is the final (V x V) average voltage product calculated by the DSO for the math waveform.  That is simply ridiculous.  You do not capture scope traces without explaining all aspects of what they mean if you are submitting a report that purports to demonstrate over unity.  Like I said before, we are not mindless guppies swimming up against the glass in a fishbowl.  We have to use logic and reason and evidence and the analysis of that evidence to support our arguments.  We also have to demonstrate that we understand our data and clearly explain our captured scope traces and relate them back to the operation of the circuit.  Almost none of this was done for the NERD RAT claim and you are seeing the fallout from that right now.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 01, 2012, 11:39:47 PM
I am now just going to do an abbreviated analysis of the yellow current trace and the mauve battery voltage trace and relate that back to the average pseudo power calculation,  i.e.; the (V xV) average, item #7 in TK's annotated DSO capture.

Let's look at the first negative oscillation component of the vaveform.  For the yellow current trace, we know it's completely bogus, it's not even the battery current.   For the mauve battery voltage trace, we know it's completely bogus, because the battery voltage is not doing that.   What you are looking at is likely external high-frequency AC and inductive collapse spikes superimposed on the normal steady DC battery voltage.

So, for the average pseudo power calculation for the negative oscillation component of the waveform, you have (garbage x garbage) = garbage-squared.

Let's look at the non-oscillating component of the waveform.  TK did that analysis a few postings back and we know that it represents about 120 watts of instantaneous power being dissipated here.  Q1 is on and real current is flowing in this case through the CSR.  Since this component represents about 50% of the duty cycle, the average power contribution during this phase is about 60 watts.

So, to keep life simple, let's forget about the (V x V) business and just talk in terms of "watts."  (I am cheating.)

If the average from the math trace indicates negative "wattage" then that means you have something like this:

(negative oscillation watts) + (non-oscillation watts) = negative "wattage"

(garbage-squared) + (60 watts) = negative "wattage"

Therefore, the "garbage-squared" portion of the waveform must average to even less than negative 60 watts!!!

The implication if you are operating in NERD RAT fantasy mode is quite startling.  While the circuit is running in negative oscillation mode the circuit is pumping more than 60 watts of power back into the batteries!!!

Incredible!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2012, 11:57:02 PM
Well, it seems that there is only one thing for the NERDs to do, to avoid looking like a bunch of ignorant, careless, mendacious, self-deluded, lying, ignorant, arrogant, insulting, ignorant and foolish fools, in front of God, Stefan, and the rest of everybody (all three of us) reading here.

And that is to PERFORM A BATTERY DRAWDOWN TEST, one of the many acceptable ones that have been suggested, even the very simplest mindless one that I showed as an example.

PERFORM THE TEST and prove that you are right, Rosemary, and that I am wrong.

IF YOU DO NOT perform the test..... then just who is it who is suppressing knowledge about Free Energy and Overunity?

WHO IS SUPPRESSING WHAT, here?

PERFORM THE TEST. SHOW EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. Otherwise...... Rosemary Ainslie is demonstrating suppression of Free Energy technology, right here for all to see. Or not to see, rather, since she's keeping you from seeing her evidence.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 02, 2012, 12:01:36 AM
@MH: At last we have a good name for the "ainslie oscillation mode" of circuit operation.

The Ainslie NERD RAT device operates in GIGO mode.... and sure enough, Tar Baby isn't able to replicate that.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 02, 2012, 01:12:43 AM
Ah.... I forgot to mention Yet Another NERD RAT Facepalm.

Note that in the video, when the LeCroy display is shown it is unstable, jerking back and forth. It's not triggering correctly.

The trigger setting is visible in my analysis capture, just above the 13, 8, 9 set of items. The scope is set to trigger on the Ch 2 trace, the mauve pink fuchsia purple battery voltage trace, on an upward pulse edge, at a level of -244 volts wrt its baseline (my number (4))! This level is indicated by a little fuchsia "T" at the bottom right corner of the trace display, approximately coincident with (but having nothing to do with) the level line of the reddish Math trace.

This might also affect the data and calculations, I don't really know. But what it DOES do is illustrate, again, that this team of "experts" does not know how to use an oscilloscope properly.

The proper channel to trigger on is the Gate trace, since that is what is DRIVING the circuit, and within the trace's clear signal, not outside it looking for some illusory negative spike.

Or even better, trigger on the FG's synch output... that is one reason why it has one.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 02, 2012, 03:29:01 AM
It feels like Rosie Posie might be flying cookie-free these days.  Like I said before, this whole issue became a matter of principle.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 02, 2012, 03:54:08 AM
@Fuzzy:
Is Donovan Martin a blood relative of Rosemary Ainslie? I str that her "son" or maybe "grandson" was involved in posting or working with her at one time some years past. Is Donovan Martin Ainslie's son? Whatever happened to that son's involvement, I wonder.
I suppose Martin has still not deigned to answer your questions.

May I suggest the following: Send him a certified, registered letter, containing a reprint of the papers bearing his name, a link to the NERD thread and to this one, and a cover letter explaining what is up, also mentioning the "legal action" that Rosemary is threatening you with. Sign your letter with the honorific "Esquire".... that will get his attention for sure.


Hi Tk,

I don't think Donovan Martin is a relative of Rosemary's possibly a friend of her brothers Peter, her son and only child is James or Jamie and he owns some type of communication company in South Africa possibly with some  Government ties. The place Rosemary lives is a small bungalow with a personal maid on the same property of her sons BIG home walled and gated complex in Cape Town.

As for the suggestion to mail correspondence to Donovan Martin is a great one because I haven't received a response from a single e-mail sent and I sent more than one also phoned the numbers that's been circulated that were found. The thing that is troublesome to me is that the three (3) web sites found not one has a published location or address connected to it and for any business that want's customers where do you go to see someone like Donovan or his work. The other thing all the web sites show pretty pictures of things with no explanation of what he did to each photo. There's one web site that even quotes a hourly rate of R380 ( South African "Rand" ) which equals about $50.00 (USD) for engineering.

http://www.donixes.co.za/ (http://www.donixes.co.za/)
http://donixes.webs.com/ (http://donixes.webs.com/)
http://cncwings.tripod.com/ (http://cncwings.tripod.com/)

So .... I'll be mailing out the package to the three address we do have. I really like your quote below and wanted to post it again for the members, guests and the administration here to see ....


All of this leaves me feeling very strangely. What does it say about the researchers making the claims? What does it say about the community of people looking at and BELIEVING her claims without critical analysis? The raw data that are available are sufficient enough to quash the claims altogether, just in those two scope shots that I have analyzed. And they have been available for a YEAR. I think .99 and MH have taken a look and pointed out some of the inconsistencies, but nobody listened to them.

COME ON PEOPLE, if you are going to Save the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil...... you really need to polish your skills and knowledge a little bit, to avoid getting suckered into fraud hoax lying mendacity like the Rosemary Ainslie claims of COP INFINITY.



Also .... for the guests, members and those that have been involved for years a reminder of some posts on "Donovan" in the words of Rosemary Ainslie ( aka witsend ) .....  :o

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59357-post257.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59357-post257.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/59721-post369.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/59721-post369.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/60215-post494.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/60215-post494.html)

http://www.energeticforum.com/83898-post49.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/83898-post49.html)
http://www.energeticforum.com/84799-post91.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/84799-post91.html)


FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 02, 2012, 01:49:59 PM
Thanks for those references from the past, Fuzzy. I note once again that she lies, misrepresents, and misunderstands (willfully) my earlier work with her first bogus miracle circuit. Whenever I see that crap it makes my blood boil and I have to set the record straight, or she will run off thinking she's vindicated.

Quoting the post that mentions my work:
Quote
I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped.  I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes.  If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels.
I'm laughing at you all right, like I laugh at all transparent liars.
My probes are positioned exactly as she specified in her diagrams. It is the DUTY CYCLE OF HER 555 TIMER that was/is inverted; this issue has been covered over and over again and I have been shown to be correct by everyone who has actually built or simmed the circuit. This goes all the way back to the various "mosfets, how do they work" illustrations that I have done. The drain (load) voltage is LOW when the mosfet is ON and the load is energized. Some of the people trying to work with this circuit STILL apparently do not understand this important point.
Quote
And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern.
I have no idea what she's talking about here. She is just making this up, I think. But certainly....depending on the state of charge.... as I showed in the recent Dim Bulb test --- you can deplete a battery in a few minutes, if it's already mostly depleted.
Quote
I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team.
She's read a book about Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project..... but she doesn't realize that Oppenheimer was a scientist, a skeptic himself, and a deep thinker. What does that have to do with the present discussion? Nothing.
Quote
And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum.
"MY" previous forum? As far as I can tell, the Energetic Forum was the second place I encountered RA, after she was banned from the Naked Scientists for trying to educate the professionals there about her "circuit". Did I post some quotes from that forum, like where she claimed falsely to have a patent, or where she was trying to educate professional mosfet PWM and PS designers about mosfet switching? I don't remember but maybe I did. I remember that it was the patent claim that first made me aggressively question her and her "work", because she kept claiming to have a patent and when I researched it all I could find was a word-salad patent APPLICATION that had long since expired and that claimed a circuit that can be found in almost every MOSFET data sheet.
Quote
I can never work out the motives of such people.  The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded.
Unfortunately I am little rewarded for my work in a monetary sense. My motivation is simply that I don't like to see creative and talented people wasting their time chasing after mistakes and impossibilities; I don't like to see people lie about their work, I don't like to see willfully ignorant people talking down to their more learned acquaintances, I don't like to see outrageous claims made without solid support, and there's a lot more I don't like about the Ainslie affair. The way she uses people, talks behind their backs, edits old posts to change their meanings, turns on her former supporters (all her supporters have become "former" at this point) and willfully remains ignorant about her topic matter... all of this and more about her "personal style" burns me up, but worst of all is her casual attitude towards facts, accuracy, and truth in reporting.
Quote
Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123. 
Really? I used both the Flukes that she at one time or another claimed to have used: the Fluke 199 and 123 ScopeMeter toy oscilloscopes. My place of employment had them both sitting on the shelf gathering dust, as we tend to use much better equipment for our purposes. The Flukes are only generally used when a portable scope is needed or their completely isolated references are required for some reason, like differential voltage analyses. Difficulty? It was as difficult as reaching for them on the shelf and lugging them home on the bus. Here she is simply lying to try to muddy the record. I published photos of both Fluke scopes at the time, and used them to show exactly the same kinds of screen traces that she showed: meaningless aliased combs, falsely triggered and laden with artefact.
Quote
His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch.  I just don't know.
That much is right--- she does not know. I had at that time, and still have, access to scopes and other test equipment that she wouldn't even be able to turn on, much less use properly. Sure, I'd like to have a fancy Tek DPSO of my very own.... but if I can simply borrow scopes that cost more than my house and car together are worth.... then why do I need to own one myself?
Quote
  Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery.
She lies again here. I explained over and over again how I did this. She is incapable of understanding the explanation, though, because it requires some understanding of the concepts involved, as well as a little basic math that is beyond her grade level... but that she could easily learn if she would only recognize her own ignorance and do something about it. Reading popular biographies of Oppenheimer and textbooks like "The Dancing Wu Li Masters " (to which she has referred several times) does not an education make.
Quote
It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle.
Another misrepresentation or outright lie. I showed the entire energy flow using properly integrated instantaneous power waveforms taken from several places in the circuit. And let's take a look at the waveform across the shunt in the PRESENT CASE: where she is plainly sending massive power into her circuit that she isn't accounting for in her "calculations" and is missing because she simply does not know how to use or interpret an oscilloscope. She was and still is unable to understand the proper use of an oscilloscope to determine energy balance.
Quote
  If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong.  I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive.
Apparently not counter-productive enough, since she is still trying to spread her bogus claims and bogus "measurement" methods on the internet, even DEMANDING that somebody give her a monetary prize for her BS.
Quote
  I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate. 
This is the most idiotic thing yet. I STARTED  MY INVOLVEMENT with the Ains-lie affair by BUILDING HER 555 TIMER CIRCUIT, determining that the duty cycle that it produced was inverted and that this inverted duty cycle was the initial error at the heart of her claim, since I was able to REPRODUCE HER HEAT PROFILES in a load, using it. I also showed, at about that same time, properly constructed high-voltage pulsing circuits using PROPERLY designed 555 timer circuits, I even built and tested the 555 timer circuits that her sycophants built in their attempts to "correct" her original circuit... as people found that sure enough I WAS RIGHT all along about her initial 555 circuit. Some of them even admitted it, but the usual suspects like Murakami and Lindemann and Ashtweth could never bring themselves to acknowledge that I was (and am) right about that circuit, since they ranted so insultingly to me before they had actually constructed and tested it for themselves.
Also about this time RA started claiming that the 555 timer wasn't necessary at all, that a FG could be used instead. So I used a FG, and also a much better, fast rise-time pulse generator, for some of the later work, and I actually did LIVE COMPARISONS between the Ains-lie and other 555 timer circuits and the FG or pulse generator.

Final challenge indeed. Here's a final challenge, Ains-lie: TEST YOUR BATTERIES CORRECTLY and prove your claim. Your scope "math" is bullshit. The only way that YOU YOURSELF, Ains-lie, will understand, is to TEST YOUR BATTERIES by letting them run your circuit for a while, then do some kind of real run-down load test.

WHY are you not doing this?

I know why, MH knows why, .99 knows why, fuzzytomcat knows why, even Stefan knows why. It is because even YOU, Ains-lie, know that you can't support your claims with a real test. Go ahead, Ains-lie..... PROVE ME WRONG.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 02, 2012, 02:44:30 PM
Just in case there is some curiosity about the matter, in the interests of semi-full disclosure:

NO, I am not getting any monetary compensation for my work here. I am paying for all the parts out of my own pocket, all the expenses of lugging stuff to and fro, picking up parts is coming off my own dime and my own time. I'm probably out about 250 dollars in real expenses, and that's not including the little inductance meter that I hope has arrived today. All the time I'm wasting is my own, but some of it is actually costing me double because it's time and energy that I should be spending on billable-time projects in my consultancy work. In fact, if my colleagues knew (or cared) what I was doing, they would probably be lolling all over the coffee break room floor.
YES, the work I do as consultant sometimes involves stuff similar to what I've shown here. Usually it is much more complex and delicate work dealing with much more esoteric and even controversial topics. But business has been slow.

And I need a new used vehicle. I need a ten or twelve year old Jeep Cherokee 4-liter or Nissan PathFinder preferably 4WD in good mechanical condition and I need six thousand dollars to pay for it. If my usual consultancy fee is 350 PER day (plus expenses and travel), how many days would I have to bill for, in order to be able to buy my vehicle? Performing the division operation 6000/350, and neglecting expenses,  I find a bit more than 18 days. Call it 20, allowing for coffee breaks.

Now I'm really starting to get depressed.


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 02, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
Hi All,
today I got an email from R. Ainsley´s lawyer requesting me to shut down this thread and
enable her old thread again.

As I stated before, I would enable her old thread if
she will come back with new measurements done without the function generator.


You may want to save this and the other thread as I am pondering to delete all of her
work from this website and ban her.

I am still looking for an easy way to export the threads to PDF files and then make them available
for download. Unfortunately such a function is not build into the Forum software nor is a a plugin / Mod that
do this... So I am looking for a solution to do this.


Please refrain from take a ride of her name or bullshitting her..

Otherwise I might have to block you too.

Please only state facts you can prove yourself and not calling names !

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan. ( admin)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 03, 2012, 12:02:17 AM
You may want to save this and the other thread as I am pondering to delete all of her
work from this website...
do that (deleting threads) and people won't bother to post anything on your site for fear of the same happening to them... this is (one of) the reason(s) i won't post any of my projects here.

I am still looking for an easy way to export the threads to PDF files and then make them available
for download. Unfortunately such a function is not build into the Forum software nor is a a plugin / Mod that
do this... So I am looking for a solution to do this.

look for a library along the lines of 'PHP-PDF' to make PDF's on the fly. it's simple enough to implement it. i'd write you one, but i doubt you would want to pay my fee...
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 04:16:44 AM
So, let me get this straight. She is allowed to call me a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Savonarola, call me incompetent and ignorant, revile me for all the work I've done, and distort and outright lie about me, what I've said and what I've done. She is allowed to post ridiculous "calculations" and bogus conclusions and refuses to retract them even after they are pointed out to her by many people over and over. And that's allowed, even when she is clearly wrong and her wrongness is confirmed by others, by internet references, and simple common sense.


OK, glad to get the rules straight. Thank you very much. I hope you do preserve these threads, because I know who is right, who is wrong, and what the evidence will support.

I can prove everything I've ever said about her and her claims and her "work", with references, citations, experiment and demonstrations, and her own words.





Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 04:58:44 AM
Meanwhile, work continues, as I explain and demonstrate more features of the Tar Baby. Now, this is not a replication of the Ainslie NERD RAT device, is it. Even though it uses the same circuit diagram, the same component types and values, and makes the same oscillation and load heating (allowing for its lesser power, of course).... Tar Baby is NOT a NERD RAT device. You see, it's not on a white pegboard, so that disqualifies it totally.

Nevertheless, it performs exactly as that other device does, for some reason, and the various tests and demonstrations that I have shown here could just as well have been performed on that device..... and perhaps THEY SHOULD BE so performed, especially the drawdown test that I have illustrated, or the more complex ones that others have mentioned. But certainly.... if anyone is talking about claiming a prize, a monetary prize, their claims should be tested in a manner that would indeed hold up in a court of law.

My only claim about Tar Baby is that it performs just like the NERD RAT device in all significant respects. If they are allowed to analyze their data in the way that they have shown..... then so am I, and when that's done, Tar Baby is just as "overunity" as their device.  If I am required to perform a battery draw down test... then so are they.

Wait... I've already done that. Where is the NERD RAT test?

And... Stefan.... as we have shown to my satisfaction, even though I have shown a FG charging a battery.... even so, I see no problem any more with allowing her to use the FG in her tests. Let her simply do the same demonstration shown in the second half of her video from last year, where the device is heating a resistor element to nearly 200 degrees C. Let her run the device in that mode continually for 48 hours, then perform a battery draw-down test. Let her use the function generator.
Take away all possible excuses for her not to run the test. Make sure the device stays in the "large heat" mode though, by videoing the scope, with it set in an intelligent and interpretable manner.

It is important, when doing her runs leading up to the battery draw-down test, to make sure that the circuit is actually doing "something", like heating up a load significantly. Using the settings shown in the first part of their video, where essentially no power is being drawn, the big battery pack will last a long time and will need to be run for days before a draw-down test might show some difference.

Meanwhile...
the effect of added inductances is again demonstrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xffhPdoNK0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xffhPdoNK0)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 08:37:25 PM
Why, in the second part of the NERD video, do they remove one battery from the pack, leaving only 4 behind, for a total voltage (nominally) of 48 volts? This has never been explained by the NERDs or anyone else that I can find. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Consider the fact that I uncovered by examining the scope trace. They are oscillating the Q2 stack and very little current if any is coming through there. But.... they are turning on the Q1 mosfet by the positive FG offset. Turning it ON, without oscillating.

Let's assume that it turns fully on. I think it is only partially on in the scope shot they've shown, but with just 1 or 2 volts more on the positive offset of the gate signal this mosfet would be fully on.

And the load resistor is quoted to be 11.11 ohms.  So, neglecting other circuit resistances, at 60 volts, the original battery voltage, the mosfet would have to conduct I = V/R = 60/11 = around 5.5 Amps. Call it 5 amps allowing for other resistances in the circuit.
At 48 volts, this figure drops to 4.3 Amps.

Referring to the IRFPG50 data sheet, we find the following:

Under Absolute Maximum Ratings, we find that at a temperature of 25 degrees C the maximum drain current is 6.1 amps, and this falls to 3.9 amps at 100 degrees C.

If they had used the full 60 volts battery in the second part of the demonstration, it is very likely that they would have blown the Q1 mosfet.... and that is why they pulled one battery out AND NEVER EXPLAINED WHY.

A more precise calculation including the other resistances isn't much better. The internal resistance of the IRFPG50 mosfet is 2 ohms when the device is carrying 3.6 Amps, from the data sheet.  The circuit, with the 48 volt battery, the roughly 2 ohm mosfet , the 11.11 ohm load and the 0.25 ohm CVR has a total resistance--neglecting clipleads-- of about 14 Ohms. By Ohm's law I = V/R = 48/14 = 3.4 amps. And at 3.4 amps, a 2 ohm mosfet must dissipate P = I^2 x R = 23 Watts. At 60 volts, the current is 4.3 amps and the mosfet must dissipate over 36 Watts. The mosfet will not survive long, since it is not adequately heatsunk and its current is over the absolute maximum for a hot mosfet. Since they are using a 50 percent duty cycle the average power is half that, but they are still at the edge of the performance envelope of the mosfet, and that is with a good heat sink, which their Q1 does not have.

The fact that they have heavy heatsinks on the Q2 mosfets... when they never carry much current unless not oscillating and turned properly on -- while the Q1 mosfet is not heatsunk except for that tiny bit of aluminum u-channel ... and does carry lots of current when the device is getting a positive offset gate signal--- this is another bizarro feature of the NERD device that makes no sense at all. Or rather...  it makes sense in that it once again demonstrates the incompetency and lack of understanding on the part of the NERD demonstrators.

Tar Baby's Q1 mosfet on its small heatsink, still better cooled than theirs is likely to be, nevertheless runs quite hot and passes even MORE current if it is allowed to get too hot, approaching thermal runaway. The result of putting a fan on it is dramatic... as it cools off the current might drop from 850 mA to 500 mA, more in line with the expected value for the drive setting.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2012, 08:56:56 PM
One can even see the progression. In the early still photos of RA's setup in the broom closet, we see the board with the single, Q1 mosfet installed on a tiny heatsink and no mention of other paralleled mosfets, along with the 11.11 ohm "custom" load, a common water heater element.

This mosfet would clearly be overstressed with 60 volts of batteries and the positive offset gate drive that is necessary for "big heat" in the load.

So, somebody said, well, let's parallel a bunch of mosfets together, and don't forget to heat-sink them. So they slapped the other four on there, hooking them up backwards by accident, and then got caught up chasing oscillations.... and STILL wound up blowing the Q1 mosfet when trying for load heating using the 60 volt battery, because they STILL had no clue as to what was actually happening, AND they screwed up the paralleling plan which would indeed have saved their Q1 if only they had done it properly.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 05:52:01 AM
OOhh. Scary. Where did this come from, suddenly?

 ::)


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 07:25:58 AM
OOhh. Scary. Where did this come from, suddenly?

 ::)

Humm .... kinda fuzzy .... hehehe

The date appears to be  4 APR 2012 ..... a older Tektronix DPO 4034 ..... me thinks  ???
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 05, 2012, 10:20:11 AM
Humm .... kinda fuzzy .... hehehe

The date appears to be  4 APR 2012 ..... a older Tektronix DPO 4034 ..... me thinks  ???

Ok ..... there appears to be a new video called "Electric OU: Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a PlayDate"

TinselKoala Channel -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&feature=player_detailpage&v=NevE0FqoRKA

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 04:58:08 PM
Oh, what a tangled web she weaves, when she practices to deceive.

Now that Ainslie has tried to disavow the Demo Video that she posted on 22 March 2011, saying that it does NOT represent her claims or even her circuit...... the waters have been muddied yet again. There is indeed a subtle difference, with at least one significant effect, between the circuit that we have been using all this time in our sims and our hardware, and the circuit in the paper. See the diagrams I attach below. The blue border one is from the paper, the plain one is the one that we have been discussing... WITHOUT CORRECTION FROM RA .... and which is the one shown in the video HARDWARE, not the video "stated diagram" which only shows a single mosfet.

Deliberate concealment? Why didn't she point out this subtle difference when the plain-border diagram was being used in simulators and replicators all over the world, and discussed many times in the NERD thread?

Regardless of all that, Tar Baby can easily be converted to the "new" circuit from the paper, and it's a good idea too, because it will then share the heavy current between the Gang of Four during the high heat mode. As far as the various analyses done by everybody, I think only the current flow per mosfet and power dissipation estimates need be revised. I think that except for mosfet heating, all the other circuit behaviour should be the same. Perhaps a bit of difference in the oscillation frequency.

I'll try to test this in Tar Baby later today, but Real Life intrudes and I have other commitments this afternoon so I may not get to it.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 05, 2012, 05:34:01 PM
TK:

More silly mass confusion.  I am under the impression that Rosemary has always gone glazed-eyed when it comes to schematic diagrams and she has been relying on her associates to draw them up.  So this could be a generic RAT problem.

I am curious enough now to go look at the video.  I will be looking for evidence that the common ground point is between the battery negative terminal and the current sensing resistor.  i.e.; in the same configuration as the marked-up schematic diagram that I have been posting.

If I can find confirmation of this I will be listing the timings where the frames show this in the video clip. That will be the smoking gun that shows that the current sensing resistor is in the wrong place and she is recording garbage data.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 07:20:11 PM
@MH: I think that what you are looking for is contained in these two screengrabs from the video. But by all means examine that video carefully, with liberal use of pause and rewind, and also listen carefully to the audio, both for what is said and the background sounds.

The top picture is the bottom view; all you have to do is mentally turn it over from right to left, like turning the page of a book.

The FG "positive" is the red alligator clip in the top view; it looks to me like all scopes and the FG are grounded to the same 4 points, which are all connected on the bottom side to make a ground bus, and this is connected to the black battery lead in the top right of the backside view at the place marked "source" with two arrows. (The labelling is nonsensical and distracting.) And the other end of this bus goes to the CVR via the two black wires at lower right, one of which goes to the "5th" resistor, the other end of which doesn't seem to be connected on the topside or the bottom. And the other end of the CVR stack goes to the place marked "source" at the lone mosfet spot, which does appear connected to the source of that mosfet. Unfortunately this is also connected to the "lower" of the threaded rods that connect to the Gang of Four.... which on the topside view can be seen to be connected to the gates of this array by the red cliplead wiring. The mosfets are mounted correctly on the heatsinks, that is, number side out, so the leftmost pin is the gate, looking at it with pins down and numbers facing you.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 07:42:48 PM
I just noticed that the "pegboard" appears to have 19 x 19 holes. I wonder if she appropriated somebody's nice GO board !!

(Sorry, miscount... it's only 14 holes vertically but 19 holes across. Is it a piece of ceiling tile? It's pretty thick for pegboard. I do want to get my non-replication right, you know.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 06:07:18 PM
Well, there have been a few other tests and explorations performed; and they are up in the usual place. Please check them out if you haven't already.

Here is an interesting one, with a little surprise at the end. No, nobody is going to scare you...unless you have a mosfet phobia. Some people do, I understand, which prevents them from understanding how they work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU)


Meanwhile, I've decided to make public my NERD RAT Test Prevention technology. This is how I am able to manage to prevent the NERD RATs (although I think there's only just the big old scrawny one left) from testing their battery capacity all the way on the other side of the planet.

You see, it's vital that they be prevented from proving their claims, and I know that I can't possibly do it by forum posts alone, so I've developed the Tesla longitudinal scalar quantum frequency wave linecaster and programmed it with frequencies that will turn the NERD RATs minds to mush. What's not mush already, I mean. In this manner, as long as I have the unit powered up and in the correct mode, the entire southern tip of Africa will be blanketed by the linecast and nobody there will be able to do any battery drawdown tests at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 08, 2012, 09:54:49 PM
What brand of ping-pong ball is that TK? I want to do a rep-li-ka-tion.  ;D
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 11:29:48 PM
Data data data, tra la.

It appears Rosie has a burr under her saddleblanket and is kicking a bit. The TRUTH can be irritating at times, can't it.


Now.... I'd like to know, since Tar Baby is NOT a replication of NERD, just exactly how it is different in any significant way, so that I can  fix those deficiencies and make it a REAL replication that we can test without you-know-who's interference and logorrhea.

I've painted my pegboard white and it's drying in the sun.....

 8)


(I no longer consider that the FG might be recharging the batteries, of course. Now I know... that the FG --or even the 555 timer--- is actually providing power to heat the load in the low heat, negative drive pulse, Q2 osc mode !! So of course the batteries don't run down.... much.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 08, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
What brand of ping-pong ball is that TK? I want to do a rep-li-ka-tion.  ;D

Stiga brand, 40 mm regulation size, a box of 46 costs about 12 dollars at Academy. Precise holes can be drilled using a step-drill of the "unibit" kind. Don't try a regular twist drill !!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 09, 2012, 12:05:59 AM
I just watched your "function generator offset explained" clip.  That's one hell of a function generator!  John Hutchison must be envious.

Not a touch screen, floppy drive, or USB port in sight.   Ahhh....


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 12:28:54 AM
I just watched your "function generator offset explained" clip.  That's one hell of a function generator!  John Hutchison must be envious.

Not a touch screen, floppy drive, or USB port in sight.   Ahhh....

Interstate Rules !! I actually have two, the F43 High Voltage model with step calibrator here, and in another place I have the F34 Sweep Function Generator, which has frequency sweep capability... very cool.
They are all big-trace circuit boards, discrete components and a few op-amps and logic chips, very easy to maintain if needed. Don't drop one on your foot, though !
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 01:06:40 AM
I think the time is nigh for the Big Question: How is Tar Baby different, in any significant way, from Rosemary Ainslie's NERD device described in the papers? Just what factor keeps Tar Baby from being an actual replication of the NERD device?

It can't _really_ be the white pegboard, can it?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 01:12:01 AM
Load is at 124 degrees F, inline ammeter says 230 mA, nice oscillations on the Q2s, Q1 inactive but present, and NO FUNCTION GENERATOR, just the 555 timer making the pulses.
The duty cycle has changed a bit as the components have aged, but everything else is stable and getting warmer.

Oh yes... open-circuit battery voltage is now 35.3 volts.



So.... that's how Tar Baby is different. Its batteries run down while heating up the load....... awwwwwwwww dammit.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 09, 2012, 03:14:17 AM
Well, there have been a few other tests and explorations performed; and they are up in the usual place. Please check them out if you haven't already.

Here is an interesting one, with a little surprise at the end. No, nobody is going to scare you...unless you have a mosfet phobia. Some people do, I understand, which prevents them from understanding how they work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpqqEefYENU)


Meanwhile, I've decided to make public my NERD RAT Test Prevention technology. This is how I am able to manage to prevent the NERD RATs (although I think there's only just the big old scrawny one left) from testing their battery capacity all the way on the other side of the planet.

You see, it's vital that they be prevented from proving their claims, and I know that I can't possibly do it by forum posts alone, so I've developed the Tesla longitudinal scalar quantum frequency wave linecaster and programmed it with frequencies that will turn the NERD RATs minds to mush. What's not mush already, I mean. In this manner, as long as I have the unit powered up and in the correct mode, the entire southern tip of Africa will be blanketed by the linecast and nobody there will be able to do any battery drawdown tests at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE)

TK,

I only have a minute, but nice videos!  I have not laughed that hard in some time watching the second one.

You better include a disclaimer stating that no stuffed critters were injured in the making of that video..

Now, I have some testing to do here, so could you please turn that thing off or point it the other way?


PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 03:25:08 AM
@PW: Thanks !! I'm glad you got a chuckle out of it. Many of the alt.snakeoil Video Reports have a similar...er... irreverent quality about them.
Don't worry, I think you are probably immune to Tesla longitudinal scalar quantum frequency linecasts. But just in case... better put on your foil hat (and underwear) as a precaution. Sidebands, you know.

Meanwhile.... I went ahead and trusted my remaining PG50s to the 555 driver.

Scope shot showing 555 timer pulses and drain trace, using 4 x IRFPG50 mosfets in the Q2 positions. Since the timer makes a positive pulse, to get the circuit to see it as a negative pulse... required swapping the little red thing for the little black thing, and vicey-versey.

It is confirmed that I am oscillating Q2s and leaving Q1 off. The Q2s are slightly warm and the Q1 is stone cold, and the circuit is carrying 200mA at least, by the inline DMM, and the load is maintaining 120 F. Touching the Q2 wiring or heatsinks causes the oscillations to change or go away but they are trivial to restore. The hot 555 timer adds some distortion to the overall waveform but with careful settings on the 555's input DC power you can get to the "classic" RA oscillation envelope as shown below.
 
Top is the pin 3 output from the 555 at 5 v/div, (also shows that "voltage floor" phenomenon), bottom is the common drains at 20 V/div, timebase at 0.5 ms/div.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 09, 2012, 04:37:00 AM
Just a FYI TK, in case you were not aware;

In most of the scope shots Rosemary posted, the HV oscillation trace is from the high side of the load resistor, rather than directly off the Drains.

The wave form might look a little different there (in amplitude anyway). That's where I always measure in the sims in order to match what the posted results are.

Just something you might want to try.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 04:41:03 AM
I figure the very best way to..."prevent" the NERDs from using the very simplest 555 timer that I used is to post the schematic someplace where she won't be able to find it. Like on the internet.

That way, if she ever does decide to test she will never be able to bring herself to use something I came up with, and she'll waste tons of time trying to develop her own timer.

I kind of like this role she's cast me in... the evil Debunker in his bunker, debunking bunkum with reverse-engineered bunk.

(ETA: I forgot to put the pot value on the schematic. It is a 100K trimpot.)

(ETA 2: GL noted that I should have indicated the "-10V" supply point as "0 V". The notation I used is  misleading because it usually refers to a bipolar supply and that isn't what is intended here. Think "9 volt battery" and work up from there. Sorry if there was any confusion....)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 05:18:17 AM
Just a FYI TK, in case you were not aware;

In most of the scope shots Rosemary posted, the HV oscillation trace is from the high side of the load resistor, rather than directly off the Drains.

The wave form might look a little different there (in amplitude anyway). That's where I always measure in the sims in order to match what the posted results are.

Just something you might want to try.

Ahh...I wrote a nice long answer to this then the forum ate it.
The high side of the load is the "battery" trace in her data, isn't it? I've found that this doesn't give me as much info on my setup as the common drain trace does (the transistor side of the load). The circuit is so sensitive to inductances that even moving the probe ground lead from the negative rail on the board, over about ten inches to the negative battery terminal itself, makes a big difference in what features I can see and how stable the feedback state is.
(What's neat is at low amplitude the feedback is an almost perfect sine wave !)
The NERDs show the drain trace in the video, and should have shown it in the paper data too.
The probes in the center of the board here are on the common drains, I believe.
But yes, sure, when I have the Tek DSO to play with I'll look at the high side of the load too, and other places. It's just that my analog scope and all these wires make the "battery" trace useless to me.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Groundloop on April 09, 2012, 05:20:07 AM
I figure the very best way to..."prevent" the NERDs from using the very simplest 555 timer that I used is to post the schematic someplace where she won't be able to find it. Like on the internet.

That way, if she ever does decide to test she will never be able to bring herself to use something I came up with, and she'll waste tons of time trying to develop her own timer.

I kind of like this role she's cast me in... the evil Debunker in his bunker, debunking bunkum with reverse-engineered bunk.

TK,

Where did you put the current return path for your +10 / -10 Volt power supply for the 555 circuit?

GL.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 05:26:47 AM
TK,

Where did you put the current return path for your +10 / -10 Volt power supply for the 555 circuit?

GL.
Oh sorry, you are thinking it's a bipolar supply like for an op amp? My bad, I guess I didn't make it clear. It's just a single 10 volt supply, the positive to the +10V and the negative to the -10 V. I guess I should have labelled it +10 and 0, or something. Sorry about the confusion, it has been a rather long weekend.  Obviously, whatever supply you use must be kept floating wrt the main circuit, or I dunno what will happen.

A fresh nine-volt battery will work fine but won't be as stable as a regulated power supply. The circuit starts working at about 5 volts, continues to increase osc amplitudes until about 12 volts, and lets the magic smoke out of the 555 at around 15-16 volts. I used a small heatsink on the 555 and it helps the stability a bit, I think.

(Thanks.. I really should correct the diagrams, and I will, but a bit later on, I'm pretty pooped right now.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Groundloop on April 09, 2012, 05:29:05 AM
Oh sorry, you are thinking it's a bipolar supply like for an op amp? My bad, I guess I didn't make it clear. It's just a single 10 volt supply, the positive to the +10V and the negative to the -10 V. I guess I should have labelled it +10 and 0, or something. Sorry about the confusion, it has been a rather long weekend.

A fresh nine-volt battery will work fine but won't be as stable as a regulated power supply.

TK,

OK, I understand. Single power supply, where your -10 is mislabeled and should have read 0 Volt.

Thanks,
GL.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 05:36:40 AM
Yep, I went back and put a note on the post to the effect that you had straightened me out. Thanks.... and have fun !

 :P
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Groundloop on April 09, 2012, 05:44:23 AM
Yep, I went back and put a note on the post to the effect that you had straightened me out. Thanks.... and have fun !

 :P

TK,

And what are the value of the variable resistor (potmeter)?

[EDIT 1] Oh, I see you put that in the edit also, 100K  :-)

[EDIT 2] Attached is a nice drawing of your 555 circuit, you can copy and paste that into the AN switch drawing.

GL.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 06:12:31 AM
That's so pretty.... awww.... thanks GL.

 ;D

The cap and the pot values can be changed. The pot can be 10k, 100k, or 1 meg, bigger is slower.
The cap can be tiny or up to 1 uF. Again, bigger is slower.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 09, 2012, 07:59:33 AM
TK,

I really like the way you hooked up that 555.  Your solution for providing a negative voltage at the Q2 source using the 555 output tied as you did and floating the supply was very creative and elegant!

I would suggest placing a 10R to 27R between the 555 and Q2's source.  The reasoning is as follows.  When operated at around 4-5 volts Vgs, the IRFPG50 has a pretty severe increase in drain current as its temp increases.  Without a source resistor the current will rise as Q2 warms so to mantain Ibias below the 555's 200ma or so limit (it is a bipolar 555 as opposed to CMOS, correct?) you will have to tweak the 555 supply voltage as Q2 temps change.  With a source resistor, as Q2 warms and attempts to draw more current, additional Vdrop will occur across Rsource and reduce the applied Vgs "automatically".  It won't provide perfect current regulation but it will definitely help prevent things from "running away" unnoticed.  The added Rsource may or may not help/hinder the osc.  The value for Rsource will be a tradeoff between low Vdrop (small Rsource) for lower 555 supply operation, and a larger Vdrop (larger Rsource) for better Ireg but also needing a higher 555 supply.  Anyway, try 10-15 ohms and see how it goes.  You'll lose 2 volts of Vgs due to Vdrop using the 10R with 200ma of Ibias and the 555 supply will need to be increased that much.  Adding Rsource could save four expensive mosfets if you aren't there monitoring current all the time.  If you want to know how much the added Rsource increases Ireg versus temp, monitor your loop current and alternately hit your mosfet with a heat gun (hair dryer)/freeze spray (upside down dust-off).  Then add Rsource and repeat the test.  Please carefully monitor current when you warm the mosfets (you don't need to get them "hot") as I wouldn't want you to overcurrent and hurt your magic mosfets!.

Anyway, adding Rsource is just a suggestion.  If you knew all that, well, never mind...

You suggested a 9V battery as a possible 555 supply.  Will it not have to provide the 200ma Ibias?  Typical 9V alkaline would give you what, 2.5 hours or so?  Lithium a bit more?  Of course, Ibias may not have to be 200ma if the circuit will osc below that.  Adjusting Ibias will,however, likely affect the harmonic content (shape) of the osc.

What are you using for a 555 supply now?

Your posted schematic is a pre-computer "copy and paste".  Reminds me of "rip up and retry".

What's up with "deepbunker"?

PW     

 

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Hi PW....

Great minds think alike! We are tracking perfectly, as far as the series gate resistor and the supply to the 555 goes. I have a 0R3 on the board in that position, but I will add another 10R in series after I've woken up and see what's up. The 555 I'm using is a Philips branded NE555N, which I have a handful of. I also have some TI branded 555P units. Adding the little heatsink helped stability, and I can operate at 320mA sustained with the 830as in all positions. With the PG50s in Q2 slots, the oscillations happen at low power input to the 555, like 5-7 volts indicated on the PS meter, and go away as power is increased and I can't sustain more than about 240 mA in oscillation mode. The circuit will oscillate with only a few tens of mA indicated but the best undistorted envelopes seem to happen at around 90-110 mA (the zoomed oscs are almost perfectly sinusoidal at low bias currents). Maybe this will change when I put the 10R in the gate drive line (source bias, gate drive... what a crazy circuit.) Even though the Q1 is "out to lunch" during the negative drive pulse Q2 osc mode, it needs to be in its socket for the oscs to appear, using the PG50s as Q2. But with the 830s the oscs are easier and more persistent.

I use the upside down air can trick all the time to cool components. Works well on hot glue to cool it off quickly too!
And... for the 830s and the 555, I have simply superglued the components to their heatsinks. No separations yet, even though they've been hot enough to burn my fingertips!  The PG50s of course are bolted down with heat transfer compound, and I have a fan handy.

I don't want to use a LiPo battery for the 555 supply because of the danger of short circuits and superposed spiky crap damaging the battery. Right now I'm running the 555 on a regulated bench supply at 10 V indicated. I think it might be possible to use a couple of 78 series regulators to cobble up a quasi-floating supply that could run the timer off of the TarBaby's running batteries, or perhaps use the 555 to switch a transistor to make the negative going pulse somehow. If you have any ideas I'll be more than happy to hear them and try them out. I think that the best solution would be running from the circuit's own supply, of course.

(Well, actually the BEST solution involves a deep lake, a bass boat, a bucket of readymix concrete, and a six-pack of Shiner Wild Hare, but that comes later...)

 8)

(deepbunker, debunker..... get it? I know.. it's weak, and I'm not actually in a basement any more..... oh well.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: gyulasun on April 09, 2012, 02:01:56 PM
To your attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c1py6CrgOY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c1py6CrgOY)

Gyula

 8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 02:21:21 PM
Well done, Gyula. I'm glad you posted that...

What did you discover about the 555 circuit? Did you have to make any changes from the original published diagram in the Quantum magazine article? I'd also like to know the resistance actually used in the series gate potentiometer... I always wound up running mine at almost minimum resistance. (You probably know that I did a lot of work with this Ainslie circuit a couple of years ago).

You got very little heat in your load at Ainslie's reported 3.5 or so percent duty cycle. Try flipping the duty cycle exactly inverted to 96.5 percent ON, and see if your resistor heat profile matches what RA published. Mine did.......  :o

What's the scope app that you are using? Does it use the sound card for input? I've been looking for a good scope app that will run on Linux (and is free... of course.....)

Thanks again, that was a blast from the past !


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 03:32:24 PM
The "official" schematic for Tar Baby with the 555 timer driver.

(Thanks to GL for the 555 rendering; and thanks for the basic diagram, whoever drew it and released it into the wild...)

(And not showing the 10R that might be inserted into the pin 3 output as discussed above... watch for the next revision if it works out.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 03:53:29 PM
For some reason, this tune reminds me of you-know-who every time I hear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDl3bdE3YQA
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 04:04:01 PM
Now.... originally it was believed that the FG might be supplying power to the circuit that went either into the load heating it up, or back to the battery keeping it from discharging. So it was suggested that the FG be isolated, which I tried with optoisolators. Result: isolation achieved, mosfets switch perfectly and no oscillations present. So I finally built the 555 circuit, but it seems that the main issue is still unresolved: the power supplied to the timer gets mixed into the mess in the Tar Baby main circuit, and even appears to be necessary for the oscillations (by providing that source bias current).

Right now I'm kind of stumped. How to drive the circuit with the timer (or FG for that matter) to make oscillations superimposed on the signal, with controllable pulse parameters, but without injecting extra power into the circuit?

I mean, once again..... it's a case of being able to duplicate her raw data but differing about the interpretation. It seems possible at this point that perhaps the circuit _could indeed_ have run continuously in the q2 oscillation mode, heating the load to perceptible warmth like the 50 + degrees C given in the video demo... without the batteries running down very much at all. But NOT because energy was coming out of the superluminal zipon flux, but rather because all or most of the heating power came from the FG, not the battery.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 09, 2012, 04:19:35 PM
Right now I'm kind of stumped. How to drive the circuit with the timer (or FG for that matter) to make oscillations superimposed on the signal, with controllable pulse parameters, but without injecting extra power into the circuit?

Perhaps you haven't seen this circuit of mine? It does what you are asking for, and is what I will be building to demonstrate COP Infinity. ;)

http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg310972/#msg310972

.99
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: gyulasun on April 09, 2012, 05:42:32 PM
Hi TK,

Sorry but I have no any connection with that video, I stumbled upon it accidentally.

Gyula


Well done, Gyula. I'm glad you posted that...

What did you discover about the 555 circuit? Did you have to make any changes from the original published diagram in the Quantum magazine article? I'd also like to know the resistance actually used in the series gate potentiometer... I always wound up running mine at almost minimum resistance. (You probably know that I did a lot of work with this Ainslie circuit a couple of years ago).

You got very little heat in your load at Ainslie's reported 3.5 or so percent duty cycle. Try flipping the duty cycle exactly inverted to 96.5 percent ON, and see if your resistor heat profile matches what RA published. Mine did.......  :o

What's the scope app that you are using? Does it use the sound card for input? I've been looking for a good scope app that will run on Linux (and is free... of course.....)

Thanks again, that was a blast from the past !
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
@Gyula:
Oh, well, thanks for posting it anyway. I've favorited it and I'll post my questions to the YT comments section, maybe the originator will answer.

@.99:
Yes, I'm aware of your neat solution and I intend to build your circuit too. Very neat by the way.  I'm going out to the component supplier today to see if they have finally received my inductance meter, and they should have the TC4426 in stock, I hope. Also I hope they have gotten some more PG50s.... somebody seems to have cornered the market around here, they are hard to get. I wonder if the cholos are using them in their stereo boot-rattlers along with those big 5-Farad electrolytics.

But really.... you and I both know that the "main suspect" will never never in a million years acknowledge that results from such a "complicated" circuit could possibly resemble, or falsify, hers. ("My circuit simply has no long wires or curly things or terminals or capacitors, Poynty Point, and this has been verified over and over by seven collaborators and an entire boatload of academics. Therefore your argument is invalid. Warmest regards, Posie Roaster")

That's why I want to try to use as much of her original circuit (whichever one) as possible and make some kind of "dropin" module that could simply replace the FG without the power injection and yet preserve the oscillations. That might be impossible, even though I was able to do it 2 different ways using the baby 2n7000 mosfets (cap coupling, very simple, and the optoisolators worked too).
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 09, 2012, 08:59:09 PM
TK,

That variable oscillator I designed around the TC4426 doesn't have a very wide range of frequency or duty cycle adjustment. It's just enough to play with things a bit and provide an adequate drive to the MOSFET. Feel free to use your FG or 555 there instead if you do build this.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 09, 2012, 10:25:58 PM
TK,

That variable oscillator I designed around the TC4426 doesn't have a very wide range of frequency or duty cycle adjustment. It's just enough to play with things a bit and provide an adequate drive to the MOSFET. Feel free to use your FG or 555 there instead if you do build this.
I just took another look at your schematic and it looks like I might be able to build an oscillator around the 4426 driver chip (excellent choice btw, makes a killer H-bridge SSTC driver with its complement 4427.)
I don't have any on hand at the moment but I do have some Intersil mosfet H-bridge driver chips all on one chip, 16 pin DIP IIRC. But I'm about to go to the store so if I'm lucky I'll pick up some of the 4426s. Perhaps using the 555 to clock the 4426 might work to give the wide range and still drive the mosfet "properly".
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 03:35:22 AM
Tar Baby likes the 10R in series with the 555 pin 3 output-- thanks PW---. And my inductance meter finally arrived.

Revision B:

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 06:43:02 PM
Can anyone tell me what are these "Phase Shifts" that suddenly have appeared in Rosemary's imaginings...er.... data? Is she talking about Paper2Fig8 below?

If she is talking about the phase relationship between the current (voltage drop) in the CVR , and the "battery" trace (or more useful for power readings, the common drain trace) oscillations at that frequency, my demonstration of that is being uploaded now.

And of course there is a "phase shift" in these signals... it's AC at RF frequencies, and besides... current and voltage are expected to be out of phase, or rather at a basic 180 degrees difference,  plus or minus , right?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 09:28:06 PM
Tar Baby likes the 10R in series with the 555 pin 3 output-- thanks PW---. And my inductance meter finally arrived.

Revision B:

TK,

Did you take the time to measure the drain current versus temp before and after the 10R?  Just curious, that, to me, would at least be a bit of "fun". 

.99,

I am not sure why the switching circuit and switched mosfet in the source leg is required at all.  Why not just put a 50R in the source leg instead of the switched mosfet and let it run?  The 50R would emulate RA's FG out and you an set the bias current by adjusting the applied gate voltage.  Alternately, of course, the gate voltage could be fixed and Rsource adjusted to set Ibias.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 10, 2012, 09:50:10 PM
Hi Tk,

Here is another 555 timer circuit that was hidden in plain sight on the internet .... with a 5% to 95% duty cycle .... don't tell everyone where it is.  :-X

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 09:58:48 PM
@PW: no, not yet, the batteries I'm using are just about ready for Dim Bulb 2 and other circuit features are not yet stable enough for me to want to put in the sustained attention that a good time-temp-current profile will take. Besides, looking at the recent posts from RA, I think she's decompensating and getting further and further removed from reality and I'm feeling discouraged a bit.

Now... if I had a nice, paper chart recorder and a mile of chart paper, I could just sleep through the whole thing.

But I did purchase two more batteries, so now I have a matched set of 6 ea. 12 V nominal, 5 A-H sealed lead-acid batteries, so if voltage is the key, I can supply it, and if good randomised Dim Bulb repeats are necessary I can handle that too. I'm setting up right now to see if intercell lead inductance and another battery or two will bring my osc freqs down to the 1.5 MHz range.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 10:10:22 PM
TK,

All I can say is, well, "geeeeesh..".  I now have a much greater understanding of certain "frustrations" I have noted in "other" threads. 

I am beginning to wonder how a few IRFPG50's would perform as a class A electrostatic driver amp amp.  It is beginning to sound like a better use for them.

I just wish they were not so slow, i.e., large Ciss.

PW 


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 10:14:28 PM
More data: with fewer than 30 Volts in the main supply, the oscillations (at least using the 555 timer) become less and less strong and more and more "picky" in terms of the 555 input power range needed to produce them, until they become difficult indeed to find at below 29 volts indicated in-circuit. Of course at less than 10 volts indicated each, these batteries could be considered completely flat.

Restarting with a full battery pack at 38.4 volts open-circuit, the oscs return in full force and controllability.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 10:52:48 PM
TK,

All I can say is, well, "geeeeesh..".  I now have a much greater understanding of certain "frustrations" I have noted in "other" threads. 

I am beginning to wonder how a few IRFPG50's would perform as a class A electrostatic driver amp amp.  It is beginning to sound like a better use for them.

I just wish they were not so slow, i.e., large Ciss.

PW
Frustration isn't the half of it. It was the same three years ago on Naked Scientists only not so much with builders. The threads there are still archived. And it was the same two years ago with the Energetic Forum (panacea u.) And it was the same last year here and on .99's forum. And it's the same now.

Yeah, you really have to pump them power hexfets to wake them up. In my next SSTC I'll use these, and discharge a tantalum cap into the gates via a phase transformer. That'll kick start those puppies, I'll bet.

Something like this but more better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfR-wsDoBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfR-wsDoBI)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 11:04:40 PM
This shot is more typical of the scope shots RA usually tries to show. She's been doing this kind of stuff for years. The few other shots in the papers are the only really informative shots she's ever posted, as far as I can tell. Usually they are a mess of false triggering, aliasing, and continuous combs all across the screen, like this silly, improperly triggered, useless for anything shot here. I swear, if misuse of an oscilloscope is a crime, these people are the Moriartys of South Africa.

Paper 1, Figure 8:


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 11:10:19 PM
Hi Tk,

Here is another 555 timer circuit that was hidden in plain sight on the internet .... with a 5% to 95% duty cycle .... don't tell everyone where it is.  :-X

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 ;)

Heh... thanks, Fuzzy.

I just happen to have a copy of Forrest Mims' "Engineer's Mini-Notebook" volume on the 555.... lots of top secret information in there !

And I made a great score yesterday at the used bookstore: a copy of the third SAMS edition of the book "IC Op-Amp Cookbook" by Walter Jung. A classic reference and in excellent shape. Seven chapters of application circuits of common op-amps.
 8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 11:16:55 PM
You are a Seventies nerd if you had a copy of Don Lancaster's CMOS Cookbook.

I recall all of the National Semi. 'blue' books.  I think there was one dedicated to op-amp application notes.  They were really good too.  Adders, subtractors, integrators, differentiatiors, low-pass filters, band-pass filters, high-pass filters, comparitors, oscillators, quadrature oscillators.... Wet dream material!   ;D :P
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 11:34:02 PM
MH,

Hey, be kind, the pages may be yellowing, but all those books still reside on a shelf here!

And MH, don't you dare start giving up on analog scopes, I won't permit it.  It happened to audio, it is not going to happen to my bench!!!!  An 8-10 bit digital can't hold a candle to a good analog.  I still use old analogs with cursors and love them.  I only use digital here for hi res FFT's so my PC scopes are all 16 bit.  I routinely need to see out to a few meg at THD's of close to (or even below) -100dB (yes, that is .001% and I have the generators to do so as well!).  I  suppose I could live with a 12 bit digital scope for most things, but at that res and at any real bandwidth, they are very pricey.  I have used 8 bit DSO's and even some LeCroy's, and hated dealing with 8 bit, particularly for non-repetitive signals and if looking at/for noise.

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 10, 2012, 11:44:43 PM
MH,

As well I have maintained my full set of "blue books".  I have an entire library of now defunct data books that for some reason I just can't bear to send to recycle.  Can we say Intersil, for example?  At some point I'll decide the space they take up is better spent otherwise.  Everything today is a PDF from a mfg web site, and actually, quite a bit handier.

TK, apologies for the off topic..

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
How can this be off topic? I have my CMOS and TTL cookbooks at the other undisclosed location....
and my sophomore EE textbook "Circuits Devices and Systems" by Ralph Smith close at hand on the shelf over there.
And here's a couple of little toys that I often sometimes use:
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 01:00:17 AM
In my experience, the first thing that a reviewer looks at when a paper comes by, is the reference section. First and most importantly to see if any of the reviewer's _own_ publications have been cited, and second to judge the nature and quality of the background research that went into the paper in the first place. Depending on the citations and bibliography the reviewer can often make a broad judgment as to the suitability of the paper for the particular journal being targeted. A paper referencing only data sheets and user's guides and instrument instruction sheets, and perhaps a calculus textbook.... and of course the writer's own totally unscientific internet blog.... means that the paper won't be considered for publication in any peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and the reviewer won't need to proceed further.

The Second category to be examined will be the Figures, Graphs and Tables of data. If a reviewer knowledgeable in the art got as far as that Paper 1 Figure 8 above.... that would be the point where the paper would go into the circular file, with extreme prejudice.

IMHO, of course.

 :-*
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 11, 2012, 01:10:45 AM
TK,

Nice...

Were you using 'scopes back when you had a Tektronix mainframe and a set of plug-ins belching out heat from hundreds of tubes and sitting on a huge cart next to you?  (OK, the hundreds may be a little excessive..)

'Twas nice in the winter, but not so much in the summer!

If someone were new to 'scopes, I would probably suggest one of the many low cost 8 bitters for a PC, as any 'scope is definitely better than no 'scope.  But, even with the best DSO available to me, I would still find the need to confirm things from time to time with an analog.  I suppose, like 96K/192K 24bit audio, some day DSO's will routinely acheive 18-20 bit at a few gig sample rate.  I probably will never see one, but that would likely satisfy my DSO desires.     

PW



Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 11, 2012, 01:30:33 AM
.99,

I am not sure why the switching circuit and switched mosfet in the source leg is required at all.  Why not just put a 50R in the source leg instead of the switched mosfet and let it run?  The 50R would emulate RA's FG out and you an set the bias current by adjusting the applied gate voltage.  Alternately, of course, the gate voltage could be fixed and Rsource adjusted to set Ibias.

PW
I could just let it run in oscillation mode, then M5 wouldn't be required (just ground M4's Source). However, I want to be able to achieve burst oscillation mode just as Rosemary's circuit does. It poses a bit more of a measurement challenge as well.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 01:38:04 AM
Some of her experiment runs described in the paper used ridiculously long periods, like two minutes plus. That's a "slow burst" if I ever heard of one. Might as well be DC at that frequency.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 01:41:25 AM
@PW: I never got to use a mighty 555, no, but I actually would buy one if I could find a nice one... it does get chilly here in the winter.
I've got a couple of RM503s that are hybrids, a few tubes a few transistors, nice blue phosphor but low bandwidth. I love the look of them though.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 11, 2012, 01:57:53 AM
I could just let it run in oscillation mode, then M5 wouldn't be required (just ground M4's Source). However, I want to be able to achieve burst oscillation mode just as Rosemary's circuit does. It poses a bit more of a measurement challenge as well.


.99

Thanks for that 99, now it is perfectly clear to me.  I was thinking with regard to a battery run down test or similar.


PW 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 02:15:37 AM
Gentlemen:

Yes I am an analog scope man too!  I loved that generation of scopes from the early 90s.

If you want to go computer-based there are some higher-end cards out there:

http://www.gage-applied.com/index.htm

Here is the setup to think about:  Modern Core i7 computer with three 22" or 24" monitors.  So you can dedicate two monitors to your virtual scopes and run your desktop on the third.  And then of course you have your favourite analog scope on your bench also.   It would be pretty sweet.  Throw in about 700 movies too!   ;D

Some of you may remember the days when an engineering department always had a 10-foot row of yellow TI data books and an eight-foot row of blue National data books.  Almost every year they were renewed and you had to start throwing them out.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 02:18:48 AM
If you are hard core:

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Advanced_Engineering_Mathematics.html?id=qh1W-1nwUsEC&redir_esc=y

 8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 11, 2012, 04:05:57 AM
Gentlemen:

Yes I am an analog scope man too!  I loved that generation of scopes from the early 90s.

If you want to go computer-based there are some higher-end cards out there:

http://www.gage-applied.com/index.htm

Here is the setup to think about:  Modern Core i7 computer with three 22" or 24" monitors.  So you can dedicate two monitors to your virtual scopes and run your desktop on the third.  And then of course you have your favourite analog scope on your bench also.   It would be pretty sweet.  Throw in about 700 movies too!   ;D

Some of you may remember the days when an engineering department always had a 10-foot row of yellow TI data books and an eight-foot row of blue National data books.  Almost every year they were renewed and you had to start throwing them out.

MileHigh

MH,

I have used a few PCI cards over the years, and I see the link you posted has some fairly high bandwidth 16 bit cards that look interesting.  The problem is that with all the hi res PCI cards I have used, the PC evironment is just too terribly noisey.  All those harmonics spewing from all those clocks and switchers is just a mess at the 16bit noise floor.  I have had better luck with USB and a laptop on a linear supply or with a gel cell running the laptop.  Possibly the newer cards are shielded and isolated better.  I do however wish companies would just put pricing on their website!  Possibly I'll check with them regarding pricing.  I see their USB scopes only go to 14 bit.

I never doubted your appreciation for analog as well, however, and yes, the 90's were indeed good years for analog scopes (and about the last good years as well).

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 05:33:02 AM
So I see that there is still some question about which schematic is the correct one to use. Evan Robinson, one of the co-authors of Ainslie's papers, is listed as the Page Coordinator of the Rosemary Ainslie page at Sterling Allen's PESWiki site, and he has this as the "latest circuit". It appears to be the one given in the second paper, that we are assured is a misprint or typo by RA.

These things do matter, at some level. I mean, if the bullshit stops below eye level or above eye level, that's a significant difference. It's still bullshit and you're still covered in it, but it's a significant difference nevertheless.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 09:52:04 AM
It's hilarious. In the Q2 oscillation mode, I think the mosfets are actually dissipating even more power than the load is, somehow.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 02:13:20 PM
TarBaby does the impossible!
According to RA, there is no way that Tar Baby's load could be getting warm, because the current and voltage in the oscillations are "exactly" out of phase. Of course they aren't "exactly" out of phase, and she's wrong anyway..... but experiment trumps theory, because Tar Baby's load, the resistors in 250 mL mineral oil..... is sitting at 125 degrees F, which actually is fairly warm. Of course the mosfets are warm too..... Testing Kontinues....
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 04:14:53 PM
So.... I put together the MileHigh LEDs of DOOM, Special Edition Director's Cut this morning. One addition to MH's design is the small brown inductor (only about 2 microHenry) and the switch. The LEDs are parallel within color, and opposite between colors. (All red anodes together with all green cathodes, and vice versa). The inductor can be switched out of circuit, or in circuit to "short out" the LEDs completely with the small inductance.
Inserting the device inline at the negative battery terminal makes a small difference in oscillations and indicated current flow. No difficulties here.  No white smoke or spalling LEDs yet !! I think she can take the strain as long as we stay under Warp 2, Captain.

With the inductor switched OUT, we see only the green bank of LEDs glowing. This means that only green zipons are detachyfying from the overwhere and flowing into the battery.
However, with the inductor switched IN, we detachyfy a bunch of red zipons from the underwhere and they try to mix inside the brown inductor, and overflow to light up both banks of LEDs.
Unfortunately the LEDs must be preventing the zipons from keeping the battery charged, because it still seems to be running down. At least the reading on my cheapo, not-AC-high-frequency-qualified DMM is going down.
(No bad jokes please. There is already one big one staring us in the face.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 07:45:58 PM
Items of possible amusement and interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ynqTc1fY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcJQpilAdM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwcJQpilAdM)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2012, 08:38:32 PM
Figure 1: Tar Baby motherboard, showing 555 timer section mounted and wired in place.
Figure 2: Tar Baby schematic, Rev C.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 11, 2012, 09:03:25 PM
Hey TK!

Very nice workmanship.   That could be a useful tool in general, just try not to over-current it.  It should be able to resolve ambiguities in the net current flow direction for some circuits.  You know how those wonderful DSOs are only as good as your skill set with respect to making proper measurements.

I suggest you do a preliminary current reading with a multimeter first.  Always do a visual check and feel for excessive heat between thumb-forefinger.  You probably have a good 1 1/2 seconds before a catastrophic failure.

High heat mode would spell DOOM for the LEDs of DOOM.

The logic is that if you have say a 48-volt power supply, the LEDs of DOOM are only "stealing" about one volt (?) from the supply source.  (I forget the voltage drop across a vanilla LED.)  So in theory you are not going to disturb the device under test too much.

So the big question is we saw the GREEN LEDs light up when connected to the Tar Baby.  Were they LEDs of Salvation or were they LEDs of DOOM?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 01:22:33 AM
Well... it is the Cathode side of the Green LEDs that is connected to the negative battery pole.
 ;D
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 12, 2012, 01:38:21 AM
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 01:44:22 AM
Meanwhile..... back at the DeepBunker..... I finally got a round two it, so I hooked up the Tar Baby to the Clarke-Hess 2330 Power Analyzer aka Sampling V-A-W meter.

It is true that this instrument says that it is supposed to be accurate below 600 kHz, so it might be missing some of the action in the high frequency oscillations. But there it is, for what it's worth.

I used 4 x 12 V batteries, and set the Tar Baby's 555 driver to make the highest amplitude stable oscillations, which usually causes my inline cheapo DMM to indicate 200-210 mA.

Figure 1: Clarke-Hess 2330 readings: Input power to circuit.
Battery >>> CH2330 >>>> Tar Baby >>> water heater element load

Figure 2: CH2330 readings: Output power to load
Battery >>> Tar Baby >>>> CH2330 >>> water heater element load

Figure 3: Waveform during CH2330 testing. Note the 60Hz ripple envelope on the overall waveform. The CH needs shielded input leads, I guess. Top trace is pin 3 output from 555 timer @ 10 v/div, bottom is common drains @ 20 V/div. The channel zeros are on the nearest graticle line to the grey dots on the bezel.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 01:54:18 AM
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!
For most LEDs the cathode is the little cup-like structure inside, and the anode comes over the top and contacts whatever is in the cup with a little wire. I always remember it as "cup==cathode" and usually you can see this inside the LED.  And I just confirmed it with my bench power supply: when the negative lead from the supply is hooked to the cup-cathode side of the green LEDs, and the positive lead to the anode side,  they light up and the red ones don't.

So what are the implications of this, especially considering two things:
First, there is the AC oscillation and it is possible to extract power from it...
and
Second.... Rosemary now says that she has never claimed that the batteries are _recharging_, just that they aren't _discharging_. And you know what happens next: the current comes out of one end of the battery, and a current goes into the other end of the battery, right? So they are equal and opposite and the battery remains charged. The LEDs prove nothing because they do just what's expected: they indicate the flow out of one end of the battery (or in the other end.)

I think the oscillations are affecting my brain or something.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 02:10:05 AM
So.... The C-H appears to be confirming what I have thought since these several days. It appears that in the "q2 oscillation mode" using a negative going gate drive pulse from the 555 timer, and the water heater element load of 10.3 Ohms and 75 microHenry inductance, at 48 V nominal input voltage.... the Q2 mosfets and the rest of the circuit are actually dissipating quite a bit more power than is getting to the load itself.

The mosfets get warm. I think I just might have to do this: I'll suspend the q2 stack in 250 mL mineral oil, insulated like the load is, and run the thing and see which jug of oil gets warmer faster !

How I would like to see some real test reports from the NERD device.

This is unique in the history of "open source" projects, I think. The "inventor" and claimant is being totally uncooperative in performing requested tests and in releasing clear and unambiguous information. Meanwhile... back at the ranch... the evil rival debunker Grand Inquisitor replicator is building who-knows-what and just might beat the NERD RATs to the vaunted OverUntied Prize.

If he can just figure out what those squiggly lines really REALLY mean, that is. Everybody knows that you can't use analog scopes for anything.

Oh never mind.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 12, 2012, 03:20:30 AM
TK:

Yes indeedy in negative oscillation mode more power is dissipated in the MOSFETs themselves.  Bandwidth issues notwithstanding it looks like the C-H is in the ballpark.

The key thing to think about is voltage drop.  Whomever is "gobbling up most of the voltage drop" is the guy that dissipates most of the power.  So if you put your multimeter across the inductive resistor you might get a decent average DC voltage measurement across that component.  Again, having no direct experience and it being so long, I am not 100% sure.  Poynt has some wonderful clips on YouTube that show how the dual-slope integration hardware for getting an average DC voltage measurement works amazingly.  I am just not sure if it extends out into the megahertz range.  Of course you could put a simple low pass filter between your multimeter and the inductive resistor that doesn't disturb the oscillations.

So if you have a 48-volt voltage source and you notice that your 11-ohm load resistor is only responsible for about 7 or 8 volts of that voltage drop, then you know that your MOSFETs are dissipating the bulk of the supplied power.  I suspect that this simple logic could have eluded the RATs.  Hence this might be another surprise for Team Rosie Posie - that the magic negative oscillation mode that generates an alleged "COP infinity" actually results in more battery power being dissipated in the MOSFETs than the load resistor.

MileHigh

P.S.:  The reason I have no "direct experience" is that I never had a logical reason to make some of these krazy-kooky measurements in the real world working on a real bench working on a real project.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 04:16:34 AM
@MH...yep, I concur. They had no idea what was happening in their circuit.... but at some point they realised that the mosfets needed heatsinks.... it's just too bad that they didn't compare the heating of the mosfets with the heating of the load... properly.
In the oscillation mode the thing works like a disabled PWM controller; the mosfets are partially on, I guess. The thing makes a pretty good motor driver (no oscillations) when you just hook a small DC motor where the load goes. Control motor by input voltage applied to the 555. Very inefficient.

Well, I have six batteries now, and all IRFPG50s as the transistors (although I see that as a waste of money). I'm making waveforms and heating the loads, both the parallel ceramic resistors and the stock water heater element, with oscillations. I have phase relations. (Don't tell my neighbors, please.) I have the LEDs of Doom, Deluxe Edition. I have every damn thing _except_ perpetually charged-up batteries.

Could it be that the NERDs are deploying anti-replication technology against me? Yes.. that must be it, otherwise my exact duplicate of their circuit, except for the batteries, must work in COP INFINITY mode.

Or could there be another reason? Stay tuned for the next episode in the continuing saga of TarBaby vs. the NERDs from Bizarro Universe.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 12, 2012, 05:08:41 AM
Hi TK,

I was curious on the Clarke-Hess 2330 Power Analyzer that your using and found a PDF file ( 2330.pdf ) on it's operating specifications what a nice unit !!  The one thing that really surprised me was the 30 minute warm up time for full accuracy ... like a older analog scope or maybe even a little longer.  ???

Fuzzy
 ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 12, 2012, 05:47:37 AM
Yeah, long warmup times are pretty standard in the test equipment field, even with today's digital equipment.
Some of that stuff like precision counters even has a little oven in it to keep its crystal oscillator at an even temperature as long as it's plugged in.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 13, 2012, 12:49:33 AM
Okay,
Rosemary aggreed to do new tests on her circuit with the 555 timer being powered by the same battery pack
and will also do a battery charge status test.

I will leave this thread open but this should only be used to explain the
effects with this or simular circuits, but not to be used for name calling or flame wars...

So please be more polite and just concentrate on the technical side of things please.
Many thanks.



Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 01:58:56 AM
I certainly hope you have the same requirement for Rosemary. And of course she should not be permitted to lie, to make incorrect calculations without retractions or corrections, nor should she be allowed to post incorrect information over and over and over without correction.  I don't think anyone has been as insulted around here as I have been by Rosemary Ainslie. When you add in the lies and distortions she's posted about my work.... one really has trouble understanding why she is allowed to post at all.

Stefan, she's not going to be testing anything-- and if she does, it's not going to be done properly.  She's been doing this same thing for at least ten years... you are simply the latest victim. Do you really think she'll change her M.O. at this point? I sure don't. Or should I say beneficiary... since you make money from traffic on your site. She certainly brings in the traffic !!

So... do you think there is some significant feature or hidden variable that is preventing Tar Baby from being an accurate "replication"of Ainslie's device? Tar Baby is ready for testing now, and in fact has already been tested to see if its batteries run down. How is Tar Baby significantly different from Ainslie's device? Other than actually being available for actual testing, that is. I have even offered to send Tar Baby to any independent tester that Rosemary might appoint, to be tested side-by-side with the NERD device using the same tests and analyses for both. My claim is that Tar Baby and NERD will perform just the same in all significant respects. If a calculation shows NERD is OU, then I claim that same calculation and measurement will show that Tar Baby is OU as well.

And since I will have demonstrated it first...... well, I'm quite sure you can "do the math" as Ainslie says.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 13, 2012, 03:01:26 AM
What does Tar Baby mean exactly? How does it describe or relate to the circuit or Rosemary?

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 13, 2012, 03:42:08 AM
Well bring it on!  lol

TK, you did probably the best battery analysis test that I have ever seen on the forums!  You compared freshly charged batteries of the same age (if I recall you just purchased them) with batteries that had been driving the Tar Baby load.  Of course I am referring to the famous dim light bulb test.  (Now everybody's heard about a NERD, NERD NERD NERD.....)

I have cranked out reams and reams of text about how to properly test batteries to see if simple pulse motors do any magic "battery resonance" effects and not a single person has ever even acknowledged the logic and thought put behind the proposed test procedures.

So, we know that any battery testing has to be based on some way of gauging, or relating to, the ENERGY stored in the batteries.  Any talk of battery voltage as far as I am personally concerned should be dismissed outright as invalid data.  When I think of the fact that there are people out there that make their living off of essentially deceiving people about battery voltage it kind of infuriates me.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on April 13, 2012, 04:08:36 AM
snip...

TK, you did probably the best battery analysis test that I have ever seen on the forums!

snip..

Indeed, TK, I commend you for your thorough analysis of the entire RA circuit equivalent - your tar baby. In fact, I think the tar baby has been so openly exposed and well explained by you, that it's now probably time for your naked tar baby to be covered up with some nice warm feathers. It's earned a good dressing.

Cheers. Good work, well explained.

KneeDeep from Hoptoads
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 05:20:06 AM
Thank you all. It was actually my read of the various analyses from you all in the "other" forum that got me to take my mosfets off the nice circuit board and mount them with all that extra snarly wire, and Fuzzy suggested varying the lengths of the gate leads. These two things allowed me to achieve the "required" oscillations.... feedback that is. They are very nicely sinusoidal at low amplitudes! And I'm sure the Dim Bulb test floated into my brain from outside, probably from you guys. The only credit I deserve is for my somewhat thick skin, which has even so been worn thin by Rosemary's insults and inanities.

@Mags: The Tar Baby is a legendary character from a classic of American literature, the Uncle Remus stories. Wiki explains it pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby)

I'm just glad I have other uses for the batteries and the mosfets. No, I won't write them as "MOSFET's" (sic); that's another of RA's irrelevancies (and a misuse of the apostrophe as well.)

Tar Baby is tired, but I still intend to do some more scoposcopy using the Tek DPSO, probably tomorrow evening or over the weekend. But that will be mostly an exercise, to see if the scope can cope with integrating the noisy instantaneous power waveform, to come up with an overunity result. Or not......

 :o
 

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 13, 2012, 05:28:14 AM

@Mags: The Tar Baby is a legendary character from a classic of American literature, the Uncle Remus stories. Wiki explains it pretty well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby)



Tar Baby is tired,

 :o

pretty well indeed....

Although the term's provenance rests in African folklore (i.e., the gum doll Anansi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anansi) created to trap Mmoatia, the dwarf), some Americans consider "tar baby" to be a pejorative term for African Americans.[6] The Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) defines "tar baby" in its original sense — and as "a derogatory term for a black person (U.S.) or a Maori (N.Z.)".[7][8] Several United States politicians — including presidential candidates John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain), John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry), and Mitt Romney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney) — have been criticized by civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) leaders, the media, and fellow politicians for using the "tar baby" metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor).[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] An article in The New Republic argued that people are "unaware that some consider it to have a second meaning as a slur" and it "is an obscure slur, not even known to be so by a substantial proportion of the population." It continued that, "those who feel that tar baby's status as a slur is patently obvious are judging from the fact that it sounds like a racial slur"

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 05:46:20 AM
Personally, I've never heard the term used as a derogatory or any other kind of name for African-Americans, or even black people.  The Uncle Remus stories, in their original uncensored versions, were part of our growing up, and we even acted them out on stage skits in grade school and summer camps, and the Tar Baby could be played by a Mexican kid, or an "Anglo" or even Jewish or Afro-Indonesian. Why, some of my best friends are Tar Babies. 

However.... back in the day, when I first started talking to Rosemary about integrating waveforms..... she thought I was talking about ending apartheid in oscilloscopes, or something.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 13, 2012, 05:50:54 AM
Or, not from the Oxford English dictionary as in my previous post, but an online dictionary....

tar baby  noun a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/break) away from.

Or is it to say that your circuit has a problem and is impossible to solve? ;]

Or is it the doll made of tar with a dress? 

Mags
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 06:17:55 AM
Tar Baby's no doll, that's for sure. You can touch it, hug it to your breast even because it's sooo cute, and like turpentine it smells sweet from a distance.... but then you get all stuck to it, it stains your clothing, the odor overpowers, the more you struggle the more it sticks and the more it sticks the stucker you get.... And of course the remedy is to get yourself tossed into the briar patch..... where you are quite at home and can apply the proper "cleansing" to get unstuck and free.

I thought the metaphor was rather obvious, really.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 06:42:31 AM
OK... back to business.

Clearly for any testing to continue we've got to get some baseline ideas down pat.

First: the circuit. I'm using "revision C" which is posted above somewhere, but I still have to power the 555 with a separate power source, and I see that SH would like to see it powered by the same batteries as the main circuit. So would I.  Any ideas as to how to implement this, with minimum component count and circuit modification to the main circuit?

Second: the load. I have a water heater element, 1500 W, and also the stack of ceramic tube, wirewound resistors. Both loads have a resistance of 10.3-10.4 Ohms and inductance of around 75 microHenry. Yet they behave a bit differently in the circuit. I prefer the ceramic wirewounds, because immersion in oil makes sense to me for rough calorimetry. I can't get the entire water heater element covered in oil and insulated. But if "naked" load is required ala NERDs, then I would use the water heater element, I guess. Any thoughts on this matter?

Third... batteries and voltages. I now have six matched batteries, 12 V nominal, 5 A-H. .99 and RA seem to have agreed that 36 volts was good enough for testing to show her effect. I have found that it gets hard to get oscillations at or below 30 Volts, and going up to 48 makes it a lot easier. 36 is fine though if that's agreed to as being suitable for proof-testing. BUT..... there has never been an explanation forthcoming from the NERDs as to why one battery was removed, leaving 48 volts, in the second part of the demo. I think it is because that part used the positive pulse mode, which would have turned on the Q1 mosfet hard, and allowed current to flow that was near the transistor's absolute maximum rating.... and that transistor was not properly heat-sunk. At 72 or 60 volts... Pop goes the mosfet. So they had to reduce the voltage for that test... and probably don't even understand why.... .or perhaps someone DID understand why... but it wasn't likely RA.
So I think the issue of the 48 volts is an important technical question.... how many volts should I use then, 72, 60, 48, 36.... or ?

And fourth... I am really trying to understand this "phase" thing. As far as I can tell Tar Baby is creating the same phase relationships between the various signals as NERD is making. Yet someone's panties are all in a bunch over this phase thing. Can someone please explain to me, in words I might understand, just what her issue is and what the flak she is talking about? I surely would like my batteries to keep their charge, and if phase is the key, let's unlock that door.

And fifth... Do I want my batteries to "recharge" or just not to discharge? I'm not sure I see the difference, even in light of Rosemary's zipon conjectures. If the batteries need to be there at all, then something is probably flowing out of them at some time, and so must be replenished if it is not to diminish. Unless even the supply of zipons is unlimited of course. Well, if the COP is (blank) INFINITY, I guess the zipon supply must be unlimited. So ok.... then....... maybe they left the zipons out of my batteries at the factory. Stranger things have happened, I understand.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 06:49:59 AM
@Magluvin.... yes, ironically, my circuit has a problem, and I'm starting to be afraid it IS impossible to solve.

You see.... no matter what I do, if my load is heating.... my batteries discharge.

 ::)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 13, 2012, 06:54:41 AM
Personally, I've never heard the term used as a derogatory or any other kind of name for African-Americans, or even black people. 

Really? But your reference to wiki is where it is found. Must be careful with that wiki.

I dont see any relation to the circuit by your sticky tar description.

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 07:12:12 AM
Now, as I see it there is a strong claim and a weaker one. The strong claim is COP  INFINITY, batteries never discharge while running the circuit and the heat output is for free, served up by the superluminal zipons. (How she knows that it isn't Glomlets from the underwhere that are doing it, I'll never know, because nobody has ruled out Glomlets, as far as I can tell.)
And the weaker claim is some degree of efficiency in load heating greater than that expected from application of straight DC.

The Dim Bulb test is a rough-and-ready, go-nogo test of the Strong Claim. Three out of five, winner takes all, loser.... gets to keep the white pegboard and clipleads.

But the Weak Claim will require some crude calorimetry, at least. (At least.... if you don't believe in Clarke-Hess, the demon god of power measuring, it will.) So... I can do that. By heating up the container of oil and letting it cool, I can quantify the heat-leak rate of the insulated container, since I know that the specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules/degree/gram,and that there are 250 mL of oil in there,  and a Watt is a Joule per second, so if I heat the oil to 100 degrees and let it cool back to ambient at 20 degrees, and this takes an hour exactly, or 3600 seconds.... that would be 80 degrees x 250 mL oil x 0.83 gm/mL x 1.67 Joules/degree/gm = 28000 Joules, and per 3600 seconds... or 28000 J/3600 s = about 8 Watts average dissipation over the hour of cooling. So.... then I can use that figure in conjunction with a heat _rise_ caused by the Tar Baby and also a DC control.
First, I can use the CH2330 to measure the input power to the circuit, and see how hot the load heats per unit time. Then I can use a regulated DC power supply to give the load the same average power, but DC, and without the intervening circuit's dissipative elements. Comparing the two graphs generated from the time-temperature data will likely produce a set of curves like these that I got the last time I did this same sort of thing, a couple of years ago. This will tell me the "efficiency" of the device as a heater. And knowing the container's loss rate and the other parameters, I should actually be able to get close to the total energies involved as well.

--- This is old data from RA's COP>17 claim, shown as representing the type of data that a time temp curve will  yield. ----
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 07:17:25 AM
Really? But your reference to wiki is where it is found. Must be careful with that wiki.

I dont see any relation to the circuit by your sticky tar description.

Mags

 Would you feel better if I called it the "DERN STAR" anti-replication device? Are you due to return from Bizarro Universe any time soon?
 
 The name "Tar Baby" doesn't describe my circuit, it only _relates_ to it. And your phase is all ugly, you really should wear more makeup.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 13, 2012, 07:37:37 AM

 Would you feel better if I called it the "DERN STAR" anti-replication device? Are you due to return from Bizarro Universe any time soon?
 
 The name "Tar Baby" doesn't describe my circuit, it only _relates_ to it. And your phase is all ugly, you really should wear more makeup.

Damn Baby  might work. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hoptoad on April 13, 2012, 11:56:43 AM
snip...
..... if the COP is (blank) INFINITY, I guess the zipon supply must be unlimited. So ok.... then....... maybe they left the zipons out of my batteries at the factory. Stranger things have happened, I understand.

I get all the  zip'ons I need, at the local clothing shop! :P
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 13, 2012, 02:07:13 PM
Heh.... C'mon, get serious. Tar Baby's tired and needs tucking in, or maybe wrapping up in wax paper with a nice ribbon bow, a shoebox, a hole in the ground, a little cross made of sticks. (Bet you didn't guess that TB is Christian.)

Anyway.... I'd like to get some amusement out of this, still. We sure aren't going to get to see RA fail bigtime in a well-conducted Dim Bulb test, for whatever reason. And this circuit isn't even as interesting as it could be, with bigger inductances and some diodes and a capacitor or two sprinkled into the mix here and there to make spikes and produce interesting high voltage phenomena like lighting NE-2s or charging up caps to make impressive sparks.

The thing could be made to oscillate in a controlled manner at the correct frequency to drive resonantly a flyback transformer's primary, or even a Tesla resonator, with real power coursing through those five magic mosfets, to make some really impressive effects. And, as I have often said before, when a system like that is analyzed using the same "logic" and analysis that the NERDs use, it would also look to be massively OU. The straight multiplication of the measurements of voltage and current swings on the secondary of a Tesla resonator has snookered many a researcher into thinking they've found the Magic Resonance or the Lost Chord or something. It's only SWR, but I like it (like it, yes I do).
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 13, 2012, 08:04:04 PM
Okay, I guess we have discussed now the old circuit of Rosemary
enough over here and some people also demanded
to lock this thread as the new tests will come
up and it is not fair to let this thread open, when I locked
the other "nerd" thread...

See the circuit diagramm for the upcoming test of her over here:

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318838/#msg318838


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 14, 2012, 10:57:46 PM
Okay, I have unlocked again this thread as some other people
complained again.

But please keep this thread again free from
bullshitting other people and just discuss, that Tinsel Koala posted
in his experiments.


When Rosemary Ainsley will have done her new experiments
with the circuit I posted she will open up a new thread and
then we can discuss her new results there.


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 12:26:20 AM
Thank you Stefan.

By the very nature of things, though, we are still trying to resolve several issues pertaining to the Ainslie device and claims. Since Ainslie refuses to cooperate by answering simple questions with simple answers, we feel free to speculate, test, experiment, and speculate some more.

1. We would like to know the "approved" final circuit, minus timer or FG. Until otherwise informed, since RA has endorsed the crossover circuit with the Q2x4 stack on the left side of the diagram, with its Source pins connected to the Positive marked lead of the FG, that is the version Tar Baby will continue to use, with the addition of my timer circuit in place of the FG. If it later turns out that RA is claiming some other diagram for her experiment, I'll be slightly upset but not at all surprised.

2. We would like to have a real answer to PicoWatt's question about the possibility of the RA circuit having a bad transistor in some of the scope shots presented in the two papers. I think everyone who has real experience in these matters must agree that there is something wrong with those shots as PW has pointed out, and Rosemary's explanations are not satisfactory.

3. We would like to know the real reason that one battery was removed from the 60 volt stack, leaving 48 volts, for the "high heat" positive going drive pulse portion of the Ainslie demo video. Since the schematic of Paper 1 is supposed to be correct, a positive-going drive pulse would turn on the single Q1 mosfet completely, and with 60 volts and a total circuit resistance of under 14 Ohms, this single mosfet would be near its absolute maximum current, and on the small heatsink the Ainslie crew provided, would likely exceed its maximum heat dissipation value, hence would fail quickly. It is my hypothesis that they removed batteries (they claimed to have used 72 volts in some experiments) to avoid blowing this mosfet, and perhaps don't even understand the reasons. But whether or not they do, they have never given any explanation for this glaring fact. A 72 volt supply and a positive-going drive pulse would certainly have blown this single, poorly-mounted mosfet fairly quickly.

4. The issue of "phase shifts" or phase differences has also not been adequately explained by Ainslie. She has complained about phase relations in Tar Baby, yet her own scope shots show the same phase relationships that she finds objectionable in Tar Baby. Clearly.... this is inconsistent, nonsensical, and requires an explanation from Ainslie. Since power calculations done the way RA has done them depend critically on the phase relationship between the signals used, this issue is obviously critical to any replication or non-replication duplication efforts.

5. Ainslie still seems to deny the possibility of current flow through, or current sourced by, the FG (or even the 555 timer) in the NERD (and Tar Baby) circuit. Even in the face of experimental demonstrations, circuit diagrams of the FG she herself used, and documents from major test equipment manufacturers, she continues to maintain her mistaken position. Since MY function generator, and everybody else's FG, does indeed act as a current source or a 50-ohm impedance to external current flow.... it will be difficult to make any "replication" or duplication non-replication of her device that she will agree is valid. This issue needs to be resolved, by Ainslie understanding, finally, how these things actually do work.

Other issues with reference to Ainslie, the NERD device, and the RATs claims may also arise and become significant in the context of duplication. These will obviously be discussed here, since there is no other thread available to do so.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 15, 2012, 02:46:59 AM
TK:

I think that the issues that you raised in your previous posting are all relevant.  Don't be surprised if Rosie does not answer them directly but instead tries to address these issues in some future presentation of new data.  The big question being does she have some people to help her or is she biting off more than she can chew?

About the thermal stuff:

Quote
But the Weak Claim will require some crude calorimetry, at least. (At least.... if you don't believe in Clarke-Hess, the demon god of power measuring, it will.) So... I can do that. By heating up the container of oil and letting it cool, I can quantify the heat-leak rate of the insulated container, since I know that the specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules/degree/gram,and that there are 250 mL of oil in there,  and a Watt is a Joule per second, so if I heat the oil to 100 degrees and let it cool back to ambient at 20 degrees, and this takes an hour exactly, or 3600 seconds.... that would be 80 degrees x 250 mL oil x 0.83 gm/mL x 1.67 Joules/degree/gm = 28000 Joules, and per 3600 seconds... or 28000 J/3600 s = about 8 Watts average dissipation over the hour of cooling. So.... then I can use that figure in conjunction with a heat _rise_ caused by the Tar Baby and also a DC control.
First, I can use the CH2330 to measure the input power to the circuit, and see how hot the load heats per unit time. Then I can use a regulated DC power supply to give the load the same average power, but DC, and without the intervening circuit's dissipative elements. Comparing the two graphs generated from the time-temperature data will likely produce a set of curves like these that I got the last time I did this same sort of thing, a couple of years ago. This will tell me the "efficiency" of the device as a heater. And knowing the container's loss rate and the other parameters, I should actually be able to get close to the total energies involved as well.

Yikes, you are being too crude in your estimates here in my opinion.  For starters, recall that your insulated container will decrease in temperature over time in essentially the same way that a capacitor discharges.  In that sense it will "never" cool down to an ambient temperature of 20 C or more realistically it will take a long time, like 10 hours or more.  It all depends on how much precision you have for reading the temperature.

So I have a few suggestions.  Heat up the container and monitor how long it takes for the delta temperature between the heated oil and the original ambient temperature oil to drop by 63%.  So you will get your time constant for your thermal system.  Supposing for the sake of argument that it's one hour.

Once you have that number and you know the thermal capacity of your container then in theory you know very precisely what the heat power dissipation rate is at any given temperature.  So you can drop the "8 watts" number that you averaged out, I can't see any use for that information.

For the thermal capacity of your container, I think it would be worth it to factor in the glass beaker also.  I don't know if you know what type of glass it is.  If you can weigh the container and you know the specific heat of the glass then you can calculate the thermal capacity of the glass.  On the other hand, it it's a real beaker made for a chemistry lab, I assume the manufacturer would give you that information.

To be continued....

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 15, 2012, 03:41:03 AM
TK:

Here is where I think you could make good use of your thermally insulated container:

Suppose that your time constant for the container is two hours.  So then you can say that if you make tests that involve heating up the container for say 10 minutes or less, that will give you a fairly accurate reading of the heat energy produced by the load resistor.  I also am going to assume that part of your setup is something like an insulated stir stick that pops through a tiny hole in the top of the container that allows you to agitate the oil to even out the temperature.

So, for example, say the oil is at 20 C when you start your test.  You run a test where power is supplied to the load resistor for exactly 10 minutes.  Then you lightly agitate the oil for fifteen seconds, then you wait for fifteen seconds, and then you lightly agitate the oil for fifteen seconds and then you take your temperature reading.

Since the thermal time constant is two hours and you were providing heat for only 10 minutes, you know that the heat dissipation (a.k.a.; lost heat) was relatively minor during the 10 minutes.  So you can get a quite accurate reading for the heat production during the 10 minutes.  The reason I am suggesting two light agitations with 15 seconds in between is to let the glass of the beaker and the oil reach the same temperature.

With respect to the testing itself, we already know there is a kind or conundrum.  The conundrum being that we know ahead of time that massive amounts of power are "lost" in the Q2 MOSFET array in negative oscillation mode.  So he NERD circuit will never be as efficient as a heater as compared to a straight DC connection between your variable power supply and the load resistor.  So with that in mind, the whole thing might be an exercise in futility.

Perhaps, you might want to look at the "COP infinity" claim in a bit more detail before you look into the thermal stuff?  The suggestion would be to set up a nice robust oscillation in negative oscillation mode with the full battery voltage, nice clean waveforms and the whole nine yards.  Such that it at least looks like you have the waveform shapes and the "phasings" (what to what???) that look very RAT-like.

With that robust by-the-book "COP infinity" setup, then try doing an LEDs of DOOM test, and then do the big capacitor test.  Both of those tests will indicate that the battery is discharging, and you can crunch the numbers on the big capacitor test and get a decently accurate measurement of the power consumption in negative offset oscillation mode.

I don't know if Rosemary is going to do much with the positive-pulse high heat mode in her tests.  I just don't see any point, it's just a pure standard implementation of using a MOSFET to switch on and off a resistive load.  It's a no-brainer exercise in under unity if you don't count the heat dissipated in the MOSFET itself.  If you do count the heat dissipated in the MOSFET itself, then it's a no-brainer exercise in unity (or near-unity).

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Farmhand on April 15, 2012, 10:52:01 AM
What I don't understand with the initial evaluation of these setups that use function generators is,
Why isn't the power consumed by the function generator considered as input ? Without the signal the circuit does not operate.

If they (FG's) are part of the circuit all power consumed by them is input. If the Function generator is plugged into the wall a
simple watt meter should measure the consumed power. The entire circuit would need to then produce that much power again
to break even. If a function generator is used in a battery powered system it should be powered from the batteries, even if an inverter is needed.
The alternative would be to build a low power circuit to provide the signal, which would be powered from the batteries.

If a vital part of the circuit is plugged into the wall (the function generator) then the power it consumes is part of the input.

It really is that simple in my opinion.

Cheers

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 01:51:08 PM
@MH:
Your calorimetry is a bit more sophisticated than mine... I was just going to approximate the dissipation rate by assuming linearity from hot to cold, but of course you are more correct and precise by using a single time constant and assuming little or no leakage.
KISS is my motto on this project.... the "choir" already knows the tune, but we are trying to convince some others that simply taping a thermocouple to a resistor hanging out in the ambience isn't quite good enough calorimetry, even for high-school science fair standards.

As far as operating in the "correct" robust oscillation mode and so forth.... except for the capacitor test part, I've already done that, twice, and tested the run batteries with the Dim Bulb Test. The only part lacking is some kind of agreement that I'm making the right waveforms and that Tar Baby is a duplication of the NERD RATs circuit and operating parameters. And we know... without the white pegboard and clipleads.... that kind of agreement will never be forthcoming from the "one who matters" in this matter.

(An interesting point that might be made with the calorimetry would be to examine the differences in efficiency between the IRF830a and the IRFPG50 mosfets. The 830a has a substantially lower Rdss and a faster turn-on time, which means that it should dissipate less heat in the mosfet itself and allow more of the total circuit power to be dissipated in the load.)

I'm still willing..... just take me to the highway and show me a sign, take it to the limit one more time.

@Farmhand:
We are indeed considering the FG as input. That is one of the major issues, in fact.

The problem is that the original NERD RATs device was built by Rosemary Ainslie, who denies that the FG can provide power to the circuit or even allow the circuit's power to pass through it. This is the motivation for Stefan's requirement that the circuit be tested with a 555 timer. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to realize that the simple 555 circuits will also suffer from the same problem: they can act as a power source or alternate unmonitored current pathway for the main circuit.

It is possible to get the circuit to oscillate without the FG's or 555's input, if one can accept just a long feedback "squeal" with no superimposed pulsations. In the main paper of Ainslie, they use a very long duty cycle of some minutes of oscillations followed by a short "off" period, so presumably the steady-state squeal would also be permissible. Once the oscillations are started with a little "tickle" they can stay on until something disturbs them. In fact, the main function of the FG or timer (besides injecting more power) seems to be to turn the oscillations _off_ during the off part of the cycle.

There is a lot of background material that you may have missed, including a lot of discussion about the FG's roles in the circuit. The main discussion of the Ainslie device is in another thread, unfortunately now locked.

Keep thinking, keep suggesting, though. It's all good....
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 15, 2012, 01:56:35 PM
Oh... regarding the high-heat, positive pulse mode:

This was demonstrated in the video demo, and it was also described in the paper(s) that contain the claims. And there is the discrepancy noted by PicoWatt concerning the possible bad mosfet.... which I think is caused by them operating in high-heat positive drive pulse mode until failure, which failure was unnoticed due to the lack of oscilloscope interpreting skills on the part of the experimenters.

This part of the experiment _must_ be repeated, the use of 48 volts instead of 60 volts explained, and the PW question about the damaged or missing mosfet cleared up, as the whole matter represents issues at the core of the validity of the entire Ainslie project, claims, and papers.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 12:31:18 AM
TK

Your TarBaby circuit is not a replication of the NERD circuit
. Unless it is confined to an inductive element resistor of the type you showed but did not apparently, use in that calorimetric test apparatus
. Unless it is then confined to a detailed analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply
. Unless it establishes the rate of current flow accurately over the shunts
. Unless that flow is determined by fine adjustments to the switch
. Unless those adjustments related to that switch can be proved through close integrated power analysis
. All of which relies on the use of an oscilloscope that can store and download data

And since none of these criteria has been in any of your 'debunk' claims - then you have not replicated nor debunked the NERD circuit

. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not

We are yet to see
. Your colorimetric test results to give us some indication of the power dissipated
. Your tests results including some analysis of the power delivered by the battery
. Your tests results comparing that rate of delivery to the potential from that power supply

In effect your debunk is relying on data that you have not either fully revealed or not yet done.  You have implied a result without giving us precise data.  Which is troubling.  And you repeatedly refer to the RAT circuit.  What is this?  And how does it relate to the NERD circuit? 

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 16, 2012, 02:52:03 AM
Rosemary:

You cannot couple the device itself and the measurements on the device to say if it is a replication or not.

TK's device uses the same components as yours, and is the same circuit, and the waveforms it displays on the scope are essentially the same waveforms that you display.

Your "inductive resistor" is just a commercial off the shelf resistive element used for heating water that barely possesses any inductance at all.  TK's use of some resistors wired together also would have a very small inductance.

The inductance of the resistive elements is secondary to all of the inductance associated with the interconnect wires.

All of your comments about making measurements have nothing at all to do with whether it is a replication or not.  There are many errors and questions associated with your measurements.  TK has and will do his own measurements and they do not in any way have to agree with your measurements.  That presumes that your measurements are "correct" and his are "incorrect."  Anybody that has been following both threads understands that that is a preposterous statement.

Other people building replications puts some heat on you because you are not the only game in town any more.  You are just going to have to deal with it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 04:00:13 AM
Rosemary

Please answer the questions asked, or you will be completely ignored.

Which circuit diagram is correct, the one in Paper One or Paper 2, or some other version? This requires a single sentence to answer, and please be specific. Feel free to post the correct diagram here, so we will all know for certain just which one you endorse.

You claim again that you can produce the high-heat mode using positive going drive pulses, as shown in the second part of the demonstration video, using the full 72 volt battery pack (and of course the circuit shown in the first paper.)
Recall that for the video demo, you REMOVED one battery from your initial stack of only 5, leaving only 4 with a voltage of 48 volts.... and you have never yet explained why.
Until you explain this adequately or show the high heat mode using 72 volts..... I simply do not believe you. At 72 volts and a long duty cycle, with the positive-going gate pulse.... you are asking the single Q1 mosfet to carry 72/14 = over 5 Amps, and it is not adequately heat sunk. The data sheet for the mosfet indicates that the absolute maximum current and heat dissipation will be exceeded. So... you must use less voltage (like only 48 volts as in the demo.) Feel free to prove me wrong by showing a detailed demonstration using 72 volts similar to those I show in this thread.

Please explain the discrepancy in your scope shots that PicoWatt has pointed out.  If you are using a postive gate pulse with the schematic you say you use, a mosfet must turn on and there must be current shown in the "shunt" unless the mosfet is faulty or missing. Or unless there are other errors, like the use of yet another different circuit diagram, perhaps. Your constant stamping your foot and saying "it is so" doesn't make it so, nor explain why or how.

You are welcome to post in this thread, as long as you back up your assertions.... all of them.... with data and checkable references. Got that? If you assert that you have achieved high heat mode with positive going gate pulses and 72 volts, using the Paper 1 schematic.... then show a scope shot that supports the claim, or some other evidence. Otherwise you will simply not be believed and you will wind up being ignored.
If you simply continue to make assertions without the least evidence, especially if they involve misrepresentations or misinterpretations of MY data and reports.... you will be completely ignored.

In fact, if you don't answer the questions that have been asked of you, in your next post here, without equivocation or dissembling.... you will be completely ignored from then on. You have a single chance to show that you can carry on a constructive dialog.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 04:41:56 AM
Now... for the last time on this thread, to address some of your points made here:

TK

Your TarBaby circuit is not a replication of the NERD circuit
. Unless it is confined to an inductive element resistor of the type you showed but did not apparently, use in that calorimetric test apparatus
You have yet to explain why the "inductive element resistor" is needed for this device, but a wirewound ceramic tube type was required for your other circuit. Since both the loads that I have INDEED used in "that calorimetric test apparatus" have the same resistance of 10.3 ohms and the same inductance of about 74 microHenry... the only real difference is that the load I prefer to use can be easily and completely submerged in oil. I can easily, however, reproduce the measurements you made with a thermocouple attached directly to your water heater element hanging in the air. Unfortunately data acquired by that method is unreliable at best and completely useless for the purpose to which you have put it. My method is better, so unless you can come up with some real reason why my loads aren't equivalent and the "effect" depends on having the water heater load.... I'll continue to use the resistors, whether you think it's a replication or not. I'll also not be using the white pegboard or the clipleads.
Quote
. Unless it is then confined to a detailed analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply
Confined? Are you limiting the kinds of measurements I take, and if I take extra ones, it's not a replication? Please, that is not a coherent objection at all.
Quote
. Unless it establishes the rate of current flow accurately over the shunts
I can and have "established the rate of current flow" more accurately than you have over the "shunt", more properly called the current viewing resistor, and of course this is a basic circuit operational parameter.... even though the current through the CVR is not all the current flowing in the circuit to the load.
Quote
. Unless that flow is determined by fine adjustments to the switch
By "switch" I presume you mean the gate drive, whether from the FG or the 555 circuit, since this is the only adjustment available to you. And of course, anyone who has watched my videos can see that the "flow" is indeed determined by fine adjustments of the FG or 555 power in my demonstrations. You are ignoring or missing what you don't want to see. I've demonstrated this fine tuning and its relationship to the current several times.
Quote
. Unless those adjustments related to that switch can be proved through close integrated power analysis
I have subjected those adjustments to analysis by the Clarke-Hess 2330 integrating power analyzer. What do you mean by "proved" in this context? Are you saying that, unless Tar Baby is overunity, it's not a replication? That is the "Mylow" objection and it's not valid.
Quote
. All of which relies on the use of an oscilloscope that can store and download data
Correction. Only the last item, the integration of an instantaneous power waveform made from the multiplication of the CVR trace and the battery voltage trace... only that item needs the DSO. And of course..... I have one available and will be using it when the time comes. And I will be doing the measurements both as you do them, Rosemary... and also correctly. Just as .99 showed in his simulation results, an overunity math result is easy to get if the measurements that go into the computation are improperly obtained.
Quote
And since none of these criteria has been in any of your 'debunk' claims - then you have not replicated nor debunked the NERD circuit
There you go again, claiming distortions of the truth. If you don't want to call Tar Baby a replication of your circuit, you really should point out how it is different. And I agree.... I have not yet even BEGUN to debunk the NERD circuit. Where did I claim to have done so?
Quote
. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not
Claims without evidence are against the rules in this thread and will result in your being completely ignored. This is fair warning, and this is hopefully the last time you'll try it.

All levels measured to exceed COP Infinity? Exceed COP Infinity? COP > INFINITY, then? Are you quite sure of this?

I really don't think you have shown evidence for this, anywhere or any time. But it would be easy to do.... just show that your batteries do not run down, by the simple Dim Bulb test.

Quote

We are yet to see
. Your colorimetric test results to give us some indication of the power dissipated
. Your tests results including some analysis of the power delivered by the battery
. Your tests results comparing that rate of delivery to the potential from that power supply
Some of this has indeed been presented, even if "delivery to the potential" doesn't make sense. The Clarke-Hess has been deployed to good use and doesn't seem to object to the high frequencies, and has provided hard numerical data concerning the power from the battery and the power to the load. In addition two Dim Bulb tests of running batteries have already been performed, along with the LEDs of Doom which show the direction of dominant current flow.  But we have not seen any real data from you regarding these matters. The papers have so many errors and unanswered questions that they must be considered completely unreliable, and the experiments described should be repeated, with these issues in mind. The differing schematics, for example, and the PicoWatt bad mosfet issue alone are enough to cause the papers to be questioned.
Quote
In effect your debunk is relying on data that you have not either fully revealed or not yet done.  You have implied a result without giving us precise data.  Which is troubling.  And you repeatedly refer to the RAT circuit.  What is this?  And how does it relate to the NERD circuit? 

Regards
Rosemary

It's too bad that you feel troubled. You should feel troubled, because my "non-replication" of your RAT team device is calling into serious question your claims, and will continue to do so. And I'm afraid that any complaint from YOU about my "imprecise data" is going to be met with great amusement every time. You still haven't retracted your claim based on your incorrect "25.6 million Joules" bogus calculation, remember. So any talk from you about data precision or calculation isn't going to be taken seriously, because we know your history in those matters.

You are in a rather strange position, Rosemary. This is the first time that I can think of that an uncooperative claimant is making demands on a replicator, demanding more data and more precision than the claimant has actually shown. Shouldn't you be preparing for your testing, so that you can "debunk" the debunker with tests and demonstrations of your own? I have shown a number of subtests and manipulations that you don't seem to believe. OK... then show your circuit behaving differently under the same circumstances. Otherwise... your demands fall rather flat.

Now... this will be the last of this. As I said in the post above, you are welcome to post here.... but you will be ignored completely if you overstep the boundaries, and especially if you make claims and assertions without evidence.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 06:10:56 AM

Now... this will be the last of this. As I said in the post above, you are welcome to post here.... but you will be ignored completely if you overstep the boundaries, and especially if you make claims and assertions without evidence.

Are you threatening to ignore me?  Golly.  I'd rather welcome it TK.  If only.   :o 8)

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 06:17:54 AM
All of your comments about making measurements have nothing at all to do with whether it is a replication or not.  There are many errors and questions associated with your measurements.  TK has and will do his own measurements and they do not in any way have to agree with your measurements.  That presumes that your measurements are "correct" and his are "incorrect."  Anybody that has been following both threads understands that that is a preposterous statement.

My dear MileHigh

TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements.  How is it then that he claims that his 'replication' has disproved anything at all?  Isn't he jumping the gun somewhat?  I'd have thought?  If he wants to claim this then show us.  We're not all about to sit back and let him insinuate his argument.

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 06:51:04 AM
Please answer the questions asked, or you will be completely ignored.
I have answered this.  At length.  But feel free to ignore me if you want.  Again.  I'd welcome it.  Disabuse yourself of the impression that I'm posting here for your benefit.  On the contrary.

You claim again that you can produce the high-heat mode using positive going drive pulses, as shown in the second part of the demonstration video, using the full 72 volt battery pack (and of course the circuit shown in the first paper.) Recall that for the video demo, you REMOVED one battery from your initial stack of only 5, leaving only 4 with a voltage of 48 volts.... and you have never yet explained why.
We most certainly DO manage the high heat test, as you put it - or the water to boil test as we put it - at CONSIDERABLY less than 5 amps delivered by the battery.  The actual value is indicated in our paper.  And it has been more than adequately explained in our 2nd paper. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 01:26:30 PM
That was your one chance and you blew it.
There will be no more responses to you in this thread.


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 01:55:29 PM
I just sent this email. I'm also posting it here in case there are any other readers who might be interested.

Quote

Stefan:

It is clear from her last posts that Ainslie is not going to cooperate, that she continues to make false statements, and that she continues to make claims without adequate evidence. She is trying to clutter up the Tar Baby thread with the same kinds of irrelevancies, ignorance and bad attitude that caused her own thread to be locked.

I am asking you, Stefan, to block her from posting in the Tar Baby thread. I stated the reasonable conditions under which she would be welcome to post and she immediately violated them and will continue to do so.

If she is not blocked from posting she will be completely ignored, and so she will simply be wasting your bandwidth and her own time as well as adding distractions and hindering progress.

This is the first time that I have ever asked for anyone to be blocked or banned in any forum. I am in general against censorship of any kind. And I don't want to censor Ainslie either.... but I will not have her lying and distorting and making claims without evidence in a thread where we are trying to carry on a scientific investigation.  And every second that she spends commenting and making claims is another second that she is NOT preparing to perform her own definitive testing.

Thank you for your consideration.

--TK

(copies to Ainslie, MileHigh, poynt99, fuzzytomcat, Laurie, picowatt, Humbugger, Groundloop, hartiberlin)
   
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 02:54:25 PM
The instrumental measurements that I have shown using the Clarke-Hess integrating power analyzer are better measurements of circuit power performance than any Ainslie has shown. The Dim Bulb tests are better basic measurements of battery charge performance than any Ainslie has shown. When Ainslie claims that I have not shown any measurements.... she again makes false claims which are easily refuted.  For Stefan's benefit, since he is unlikely to want to prowl back through the thread, I will repost the Clarke-Hess measurements here. And there are videos full of measurements on the YT channel... just not a lot of colored numbers in boxes.

Conditions of testing: Tar Baby in negative-going gate drive pulse mode, making the oscillations, driven from 555 timer, heating a load, running on 4 batteries at a nominal 48 volts. In other words, just the same mode as shown in the first part of Ainslie's demo video but with one less battery. (I have six batteries, of course, but I am reserving two, chosen randomly, as "setasides" for Dim Bulb test comparisons.)

The first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load

The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby  >>> CH2330 >>> Load

The third shot is the scope during the CH testing, negative pulse gate drive signal on the top at 10 V/div and the battery voltage at the battery terminals on the bottom trace at 20 V/div, zero references indicated by the graticle line nearest the grey dots on the right side of the bezel. The feedback oscillations have a slight envelope distortion (amplitude increase) caused by the CH's cable harness inductance.

The CH current readings are consistently about 10 percent higher than the readings on my cheapo inline ammeter. This current difference could reflect the fact that the CH is better at reading odd signals than the DMM is. And this current is adjusted by fine tuning the gate drive to the circuit and looking at the form of the "oscillations", which refutes yet another false claim that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance. The differences in the input and output power readings represent power lost in the circuit that doesn't reach the load: mosfet heating, RF radiation, and so on.

The Clarke-Hess might be missing some power in higher frequency oscillations, though. That's why I also used an RF wattmeter on the Tar Baby, as if it were a radio transmitter putting power at 1.6 or 2.4 MHz into a transmission line or antenna represented by the load and batteries. The SWR sucks which means that the RF power is bouncing around and being dissipated within the circuit; not much of it is radiating, even though I can pick it up on my FM radio. So there is an issue with respect to calibration of the CH2330 to see if it's accounting for the RF power in its measurements. One thing seems fairly certain: Tar Baby isn't recharging batteries with RF-- since it is AC, and since TB's batteries do run down. Some is evidently heating the load which doesn't care about polarity reversals, and some load heating is coming from the "dc" that the partially on mosfets can pass, separate from the oscillations. The power levels are so small though that I might not be able to tease them apart with my crude calorimetry.


(Note that the CH is _not_ simply multiplying the average current shown by the average voltage shown. It is taking into account the phase differences involved in the signal it's measuring. I could select "power factor" on the display to indicate what the CH is detecting here, but for this measurement I'm just showing the "true power" as determined by the CH's integrating function.... combining the functions performed by the NERD RATs scope dumps and spreadsheet analysis and doing it properly... within its frequency limitations of course.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 03:47:45 PM
The instrumental measurements that I have shown using the Clarke-Hess integrating power analyzer are better measurements of circuit power performance than any Ainslie has shown. The Dim Bulb tests are better basic measurements of battery charge performance than any Ainslie has shown. When Ainslie claims that I have not shown any measurements.... she again makes false claims which are easily refuted.  For Stefan's benefit, since he is unlikely to want to prowl back through the thread, I will repost the Clarke-Hess measurements here. And there are videos full of measurements on the YT channel... just not a lot of colored numbers in boxes.

Conditions of testing: Tar Baby in negative-going gate drive pulse mode, making the oscillations, driven from 555 timer, heating a load, running on 4 batteries at a nominal 48 volts. In other words, just the same mode as shown in the first part of Ainslie's demo video but with one less battery. (I have six batteries, of course, but I am reserving two, chosen randomly, as "setasides" for Dim Bulb test comparisons.)

The first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load

The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby  >>> CH2330 >>> Load
This is not clear.  Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330?  In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic.  You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all.  Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery?  At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal?  Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal?  If the former - then the readings should be co-incident.  If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim.  And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing?  To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output.  In which case?   On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery.  Which is a negative voltage value.  If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge.  And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit.  Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation.  I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive.  And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other.  Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results.  That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.   

Regards
Rosemary

ADDED
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 03:48:15 PM
The CH current readings are consistently about 10 percent higher than the readings on my cheapo inline ammeter. This current difference could reflect the fact that the CH is better at reading odd signals than the DMM is. And this current is adjusted by fine tuning the gate drive to the circuit and looking at the form of the "oscillations", which refutes yet another false claim that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance. The differences in the input and output power readings represent power lost in the circuit that doesn't reach the load: mosfet heating, RF radiation, and so on.

The Clarke-Hess might be missing some power in higher frequency oscillations, though. That's why I also used an RF wattmeter on the Tar Baby, as if it were a radio transmitter putting power at 1.6 or 2.4 MHz into a transmission line or antenna represented by the load and batteries. The SWR sucks which means that the RF power is bouncing around and being dissipated within the circuit; not much of it is radiating, even though I can pick it up on my FM radio. So there is an issue with respect to calibration of the CH2330 to see if it's accounting for the RF power in its measurements. One thing seems fairly certain: Tar Baby isn't recharging batteries with RF-- since it is AC, and since TB's batteries do run down. Some is evidently heating the load which doesn't care about polarity reversals, and some load heating is coming from the "dc" that the partially on mosfets can pass, separate from the oscillations. The power levels are so small though that I might not be able to tease them apart with my crude calorimetry.
The rest of this post is simply an admission of the inadequacy of your measuring instruments.  Why are you not simply analysing the waveform across a shunt resistor to determine amperage?  That should be possible even with your scope.  And even if you can't finely integrate your values.  At least then we'd see the 'trend' of that voltage - whether or not it is greater above or below zero?  Right now the evidence is that you've partially replicated our battery waveform - but without the required amplitude.  And that you have simply NOT replicated our current flow as you give no evidence of it's voltage one way or the other.  The signal from the switch is not relevant to this power analysis.  It will only be relevant when you need to prove that the battery supplying that switch may or may not be adding energy to the system.  And that's another thing.  Are you using a separate battery?  Or are you powering the switch from one of the four batteries you use for your input.
 
 If you are going to claim that you've debunked - I'd have thought that all these points are critical.  Why are you not addressing them?
 
 Regards,
 Rosemary 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 03:52:04 PM
The noise will be ignored.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 03:55:31 PM
And TK - don't give me that 'the NERD team have shown no measurements.  We give copious measurements.  The problem is that we dare not compute the wattage as we do not know how to resolve the anomaly of a negative product related to this.  It has no relevance to any known power measurement.

And our measurements are clear and have been conducted on highly sophisticated machines.  What is true is that we have not tested our apparatus switched by a 555.  That's due.

Again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 04:02:38 PM
The noise will be ignored.

The 'noise' as you put it  is the counter argument.  I see why you need to avoid this.  Your object is to try and convince our readers that you have replicated our circuit.  It is patently NOT a replication.  It lacks critical features - some of which I listed in the previous two posts namely

.  Oscillation amplitude over the battery is inadequate and variable between each switching period
.  There are no indications of the voltage across the shunt
.  Therefore there is no way to gauge whether the voltage is predominately negative
.  You need to replace the load with something more appropriate as the inductance is, we suspect, a critical factor

We are yet to see some conclusions drawn from the calorimetric apparatus that you've installed.  How and what do you determine is the wattage dissipated.

Regards again,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 04:48:15 PM
Regarding this email to Stefan:

>>It is clear from her last posts that Ainslie is not going to cooperate, that she continues to make false statements, and that she continues to make claims without adequate evidence.
Where have I made false statements?

>>She is trying to clutter up the Tar Baby thread with the same kinds of irrelevancies, ignorance and bad attitude that caused her own thread to be locked.
I am addressing certain inaccuracies.  That's hardly irrelevant.  And the locking of my own thread had nothing whatsoever to do with any of my input.  Unlike the rest of you, I never resorted to slander nor did anything short of defend my work - which is and was much required.

>>I am asking you, Stefan, to block her from posting in the Tar Baby thread. I stated the reasonable conditions under which she would be welcome to post and she immediately violated them and will continue to do so.
I see this now.  What you want is to flame my thread that it's locked.  Then prevent my protests on your own thread.  And leave unanswered and undefended the continuing allegations and insinuations that claim you've replicated and debunked our hard work.  Which would leave me without any kind of voice to protest a continuing abuse.  And you consider this fair?

>>If she is not blocked from posting she will be completely ignored, and so she will simply be wasting your bandwidth and her own time as well as adding distractions and hindering progress.
Very happy to be ignored.  Just as long as I can interject with the occasional and much needed contradictions against your own insinuations Tk.  That - at its least - leaves me with a voice.  Else I suspect that you'll not give a fair account of those tests as is evident thus far.

>>This is the first time that I have ever asked for anyone to be blocked or banned in any forum. I am in general against censorship of any kind. And I don't want to censor Ainslie either.... but I will not have her lying and distorting and making claims without evidence in a thread where we are trying to carry on a scientific investigation.  And every second that she spends commenting and making claims is another second that she is NOT preparing to perform her own definitive testing.
Yes indeed.  I see that now.  You are indeed very fair minded.  One just needs to see how you managed to get my own thread locked by your own controversial and slanderous allegations to prevent any progress to any kind of reasonable discussion. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 05:40:50 PM
Let me remind everyone again that this thread is about testing the Tar Baby. The only claim I have made is that Tar Baby performs just the same in all significant respects as the NERD circuit. If anyone is going to claim differently, they need to show proof by showing the NERD circuit doing something that Tar Baby doesn't, under the same conditions. Does NERD run without depleting its batteries? We will only find that out when it is tested. Tar Baby depletes its batteries when running. But in every case where actual data is available, Tar Baby does just what NERD does. I have asked some questions about NERD to help me in this effort... and the answers have not been forthcoming. Why was one battery removed for the second part of the video demo, leaving only 48 volts for the high-heat mode? That is just one question that has not been answered, in spite of constant protestations to "read the papers" which are fraught with errors and bad presentations.

I am sure that everyone with any electronic expertise understands how the Clarke-Hess is hooked to the circuit, and certainly the operating manual is on the internet for downloading by anyone who cares to. But for those readers who might not understand that the instrument is a sampling V-A-W meter and thus performs the exact same function as an oscilloscope's two channels monitoring voltage and current, sampling them, multiplying them, accounting for power factor phase shifts, and integrating if necessary...... here is the schematic showing how the instrument is hooked into the circuit. Obviously I only have one (of this model; I actually do have another CH available of a different model). So the measurements are made by unhooking it from one end and re-hooking it to the other end without changing anything else.

And... consistent with my main claim... I maintain that if the NERD circuit were hooked to a similar meter a similar result would be obtained. If someone maintains differently it is up to them to show the evidence. And once again... I have offered Tar Baby to be tested independently, side-by-side with NERD, by whatever method the tester chooses, as long as both devices are treated the same. That is, I am willing to have my claims tested independently at any time, and I am ready for this now.

And still further..... if someone doesn't believe that Tar Baby is an accurate replication of NERD, and yet cannot state just why, with references and data..... then perhaps they are posting in the wrong thread.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 07:23:16 PM
The requirement that the 555 timer circuit (or other clock) be powered from the main running batteries has a problem.

With a positive going pulse, like that used in the high-heat demonstration, there is no difficulty and the circuit above can be used simply by swapping the 555 pin 3 and minus connections to the circuit and providing a suitable voltage dropping potentiometer to make the input voltage from the main battery's most negative cell,  to the 555,  adjustable.

For a negative going gate drive pulse to be used, as in the low heat mode which is supposed to be of most interest .... the pulse has to be negative with respect to the _negative rail_ of the main circuit.... that is, the most negative pole of the battery. An externally powered FG can do this, obviously, through the use of offset and pulse type controls. The 555 timer can do this if it's externally battery powered too, by wiring it "inverted" as I have shown above and have been using with Tar Baby.

I don't think a 555 timer or other simple clock, powered by the running batteries, can make a pulse that is more negative than the most negative pole of its battery. Hence it cannot be used this way to provide the negative going gate drive pulse. I think.

If anybody can come up with a simple solution to this little problem, or show that it's not a problem at all .... please PM me and I'll try it right away.


And there seems to be another little problem for replicators of this open source community effort free energy project.

The NERD RATs now seem to be claiming that a wirewound ceramic tube resistor stack won't work in their NERD device to prevent battery depletion, even if it is almost of the same resistance and inductance as the "custom" water heater element that they have used. Such a resistor was the preferred load for an earlier COP>17 claim using an IRFPG50 mosfet and batteries that didn't discharge.... but they can't be used in the present NERD device. Only the exact custom element they used will work properly, according to the current claim. This throws an obvious wrench into the replication efforts of others.

Fortunately... we know that Tar Baby isn't a replication, don't we.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 07:29:52 PM
TK
Thank you for clarifying the position of the CH2330.  If I understand you - you're claiming that the first set of numbers on that instrument  represents the output and the second set of numbers represents the input - then correctly you should take the sum of both values.  Surely this is NOT what you mean?

Current at the output = 0.2386
Current at the  input  = 0.2291

I suspect that the amperage is determined as a DC value which means that the CH is simply giving the sum.  Which means that the wattage delivered by the battery supply is either 11.62 watts OR 11.157 watts determined as a product of the battery voltage 48.7 volts and the current.  However.  Neither number is evident on the CH2330.  And in any event you don't clarify what those numbers represent.  I can see the amperage and I can see the voltage over the first picture.  Not the second.  If the machine is not able to ascertain the battery voltage you can hardly expect it to represent the wattage accurately.

Therefore we none of us have any idea what it is you're hoping that the CH2330 is showing.  Hopefully you'll clarify this in the fullness of time.

Regards
Rosemary 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 07:48:11 PM
I will answer you this one time.

No, as usual you are not correct. The first picture, labelled "INPUT", is the measurement taken at the location marked "INPUT MEASUREMENT" on the diagram.
The second is at the other location.

FROM MY POST:
Quote
The first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load

The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby  >>> CH2330 >>> Load

Next.... the differences in current... a few milliamps ... can be attributed to the slight differences in wiring length in the two locations. You do not in any way "add" these figures together. They represent the average current flowing through the meter's very precise and very low-resistance  internal "shunt" -- hence through the circuit itself -- at the time the photos were taken, and are very reliable. You have no grounds for disputing them.... unless you want to demonstrate that they aren't reliable, by some measurements and data of your own.

Next... the CH definitely DOES take into account the oscillations and is NOT simply measuring a DC current. THIS IS WHY THE WATTAGE FIGURES DO NOT REFLECT A SIMPLE MULTIPLICATION. The unit computes and takes into account the power factor, and can display it if asked.

In the second picture -- the OUTPUT TO THE LOAD -- the voltage meter is showing the voltage that the load is experiencing, if you want to look at it that way. The voltage and current readings displayed on the meter are averaged over a suitable time constant that the meter itself determines based on the frequency it detects.

In other words, the Clarke Hess is detecting, computing and displaying the same information you get when you use an oscilloscope to multiply current and voltage to determine a power curve, and further, can integrate that curve to give the energy flow.

"WE none of us" means only YOU, in this context, Rosemary. The instrument reads what it reads, it is hooked up as it is hooked up, and the interpretation is clear... to those who know their subject, and I don't have to explain it to them, I allow them to make their own conclusions. You, however, not only do not know your subject, but you apparently cannot even read figure captions correctly... so I will give you the courtesy of an explanation.... something you yourself avoid when asked questions.

Why was the battery removed from the "high heat" portion of the video demo, leaving a battery pack of only 48 volts? This question is not answered in the papers, it is not answered in the video, and you have never answered it. And you aren't going to answer it now, either.

Therefore, back to BIPS.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 07:49:23 PM
Let me remind everyone again that this thread is about testing the Tar Baby. The only claim I have made is that Tar Baby performs just the same in all significant respects as the NERD circuit. If anyone is going to claim differently, they need to show proof by showing the NERD circuit doing something that Tar Baby doesn't, under the same conditions.
I've already listed the variations.  I'll do so again later tonight.
But in every case where actual data is available, Tar Baby does just what NERD does.
So you say.  But we've not seen this.  The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude.  And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.
I have asked some questions about NERD to help me in this effort... and the answers have not been forthcoming. Why was one battery removed for the second part of the video demo, leaving only 48 volts for the high-heat mode?
I have answered this.  You have ignored my answer.
That is just one question that has not been answered, in spite of constant protestations to "read the papers" which are fraught with errors and bad presentations.
So I'm not sure that this statement is correct.  Anywhere.  At all.
I am sure that everyone with any electronic expertise understands how the Clarke-Hess is hooked to the circuit, and certainly the operating manual is on the internet for downloading by anyone who cares to. But for those readers who might not understand that the instrument is a sampling V-A-W meter and thus performs the exact same function as an oscilloscope's two channels monitoring voltage and current, sampling them, multiplying them, accounting for power factor phase shifts, and integrating if necessary.
I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this.
And... consistent with my main claim... I maintain that if the NERD circuit were hooked to a similar meter a similar result would be obtained. If someone maintains differently it is up to them to show the evidence. And once again... I have offered Tar Baby to be tested independently, side-by-side with NERD, by whatever method the tester chooses, as long as both devices are treated the same. That is, I am willing to have my claims tested independently at any time, and I am ready for this now.
This argument is somewhat meaningless.  We do not use the CH2330.  We calculate the current from the supply - under considerably more stringent conditions that are also based on the voltage across the shunt or CSR in our schematic.
And still further..... if someone doesn't believe that Tar Baby is an accurate replication of NERD, and yet cannot state just why, with references and data..... then perhaps they are posting in the wrong thread.
I am entirely satisfied that I have already pointed out where the Tar Baby varies from the NERD circuit.

Regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 08:07:13 PM
Let me see if I can explain this again.  It will require that you read what I post here TK.

Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery.  This results in a negative wattage.  We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.

If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit.  It's that simple.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 16, 2012, 08:16:35 PM
In the Ainslie paper the value of the load inductance, the "custom" water heater element that looks perfectly standard to me and others.... the inductance is given as 2.23 microHenry. I think the lead inductance alone would be greater than this. The inductance of the "shunt" resistor stack, 4 ordinary wirewound "cement" resistors in parallel, is given as 110 nanoHenry, a remarkably low value for wirewound resistors of this type. My own stack of 4, outwardly identical resistors, measures around 2 microHenry on my cheapo inductance meter.... which measures the known inductances I have available quite accurately.
I'd like to see these inductance measurements repeated on the NERD device.

And no, it's not "as simple as that."
You are resorting to Mylow-Allen logic just as I said you would. The Tar Baby isn't a replication, you claim...  because it's not overunity. And that's just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 16, 2012, 08:36:38 PM
In the Ainslie paper the value of the load inductance, the "custom" water heater element that looks perfectly standard to me and others.... the inductance is given as 2.23 microHenry. I think the lead inductance alone would be greater than this. The inductance of the "shunt" resistor stack, 4 ordinary wirewound "cement" resistors in parallel, is given as 110 nanoHenry, a remarkably low value for wirewound resistors of this type. My own stack of 4, outwardly identical resistors, measures around 2 microHenry on my cheapo inductance meter.... which measures the known inductances I have available quite accurately.
I'd like to see these inductance measurements repeated on the NERD device.

And no, it's not "as simple as that."
You are resorting to Mylow-Allen logic just as I said you would. The Tar Baby isn't a replication, you claim...  because it's not overunity. And that's just ridiculous.

TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery.  Those numbers are unequivocal - carefully evaluated and widely accredited.  It does not help anything to simply state that it is 'ridiculous'.  We know this.  Which is precisely why we have written that paper.

And then, with respect, there is only one way to evaluate this - if that evaluation is sincere - and that is to see if you can replicate that number.  If you can't - then your replication has failed.  We can and do.  And we do it under the most stringent of applied protocols.  Look at our 3rd test in that paper.  Look at the current flow during the 'on' period of the duty cycle.  That's our 'water to boil' test.  Conservatively we were dissipating in excess of 120 watts.  And the current discharge from the battery supply during the 'on' period of each duty cycle was based on a voltage that varied between 0.002 volts and zero.  Not only that but our battery voltage actually increased over the test period. 

So. Again.  If you are going to replicate then you needs must find that negative value.  And I suspect that you cannot tune to that value as your scope is not able to show the sum - which is our easy and quick guide to the required settings.

Regards
Rosie Pose
added
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 03:26:37 AM
In the second NERD paper, page 2, Table 1, the value of the "shunt" or current viewing resistor is given.

Quote
4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed
in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 110nH.
One hundred and ten nanoHenries.

In the video of the demo, the apparatus is shown and these resistors appear to be ordinary power resistors of the common "ceramic" wirewound type. However they are not 1 Watt but rather 10 Watt resistors. Yet the paper appears to be describing the same experiment and apparatus shown in the video.

Perhaps this is yet another typo.

Strange, though, that nobody has told me that my CVR is using 10 Watt resistors where I should have been using 1 Watt. Therefore, the preponderance of data suggests that the NERD device did in fact use the 10 Watt resistors in the paper, since they certainly did in the demo video.

I measured the inductance of one of my resistors and it measures 7 microHenry. Therefore, calculation says that the stack should have 1.75 microHenry inductance, and in fact the meter gives me a value something under 2 microHenry for the stack in place on the board. That would be 1750 nanoHenry or well over ten times the inductance reported for the same parts by the NERDs in the paper.

I've made a video illustrating these measurements, including "calibrating" the Pro'sKit meter against commercial loads of known (labelled) inductances.
It's uploading now and will be hidden in the usual hiding place.

Clearly.... there is a discrepancy somewhere. How did the NERDs get such a low inductance value, using the same kind of resistors as I am using?
Either their common-appearing wirewound ceramic power resistors are different in some hidden way, or they used different resistors altogether than what was shown in the video, or.... their reported inductance reading is wrong. Once again, a simple 5 minute video showing the same things that I show in the present video would answer the question once and for all. Use the Ainslie inductance meter to measure some marked, known inductances, then measure the questionable inductances. Simple and definitive. Here is where I remind the readers that no calibration data whatsoever has ever been shown by the Ainslie team, and in fact they have reported temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.

The resistors can be seen fairly well in the shots attached below.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 17, 2012, 03:38:50 AM
TK:

Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere?  They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 17, 2012, 03:55:58 AM
TK:

Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere?  They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.

MileHigh
milehigh... on the prowl.  *splat* *splat*   time for you to scavenge for some restaurant napkins, hopefully unused.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on April 17, 2012, 03:57:14 AM

 .
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: evolvingape on April 17, 2012, 04:00:10 AM
temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I

 ???
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 17, 2012, 04:03:52 AM
or  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxkjvKBPQjo

???
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 04:07:11 AM
TK:

Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere?  They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.

MileHigh
I have never seen a part number for these resistors in the NERD data. Of course, they also list the part number of their function generator incorrectly....

Certainly, had I used special counter-wound noninductive resistors, I would have said so and listed their part numbers.  Wouldn't you? I might even have wired them in counterparallel pairs... like they clearly didn't.

Instead, they list them as indicated in their papers, one list of which is reproduced below. And in the video at least, they certainly don't look like anything but common power resistors, and they have plenty of wire length attached to them, much more than Tar Baby does.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 04:09:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I)

 ???

The NERD load was of course not in any kind of pressure vessel. It was open to the atmosphere, and its container can be seen in the videos.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 04:34:00 AM
In the second NERD paper, page 2, Table 1, the value of the "shunt" or current viewing resistor is given.
One hundred and ten nanoHenries. In the video of the demo, the apparatus is shown and these resistors appear to be ordinary power resistors of the common "ceramic" wirewound type. However they are not 1 Watt but rather 10 Watt resistors. Yet the paper appears to be describing the same experiment and apparatus shown in the video.
Not actually.  There is a 10 Watt resistor that is disconnected.  It was provided for in the event that we needed to test higher amperage flow.  The resistors that we use to gauge our current were 4 x 1 Ohm in parallel.  It's a shame that you could not show this with greater clarity.  Or was that deliberate?  One never knows TK - if you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts - or if you're responding to a rather desperate compulsion over which you have no control.
Perhaps this is yet another typo.
Or not?  Take your pick.  I'm reasonably certain that you're not so much concerned with the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it - as you are with the 'spin' as Goebbels would put it.
Strange, though, that nobody has told me that my CVR is using 10 Watt resistors where I should have been using 1 Watt. Therefore, the preponderance of data suggests that the NERD device did in fact use the 10 Watt resistors in the paper, since they certainly did in the demo video.
Not actually TK.  But far be it from me to prevent you inventing some bases for your objections.  You can hardly promote them from the facts.
I measured the inductance of one of my resistors and it measures 7 microHenry. Therefore, calculation says that the stack should have 1.75 microHenry inductance, and in fact the meter gives me a value something under 2 microHenry for the stack in place on the board. That would be 1750 nanoHenry or well over ten times the inductance reported for the same parts by the NERDs in the paper.
Which is an interesting if utterly irrelevant 'real truth'.  Based as it is on the assumption that we're using 4 x 10 Ohm resistors.  Golly.
I've made a video illustrating these measurements, including "calibrating" the Pro'sKit meter against commercial loads of known (labelled) inductances.  It's uploading now and will be hidden in the usual hiding place.
One hopes that it's presented with some level of good lighting and clear argument.  That would be a welcome change.
Clearly.... there is a discrepancy somewhere. How did the NERDs get such a low inductance value, using the same kind of resistors as I am using?  Either their common-appearing wirewound ceramic power resistors are different in some hidden way, or they used different resistors altogether than what was shown in the video, or.... their reported inductance reading is wrong.
You've made a glaring omission of another relevant option.  Here it is.  'Or you're misrepresenting the facts.'
Once again, a simple 5 minute video showing the same things that I show in the present video would answer the question once and for all. Use the Ainslie inductance meter to measure some marked, known inductances, then measure the questionable inductances. Simple and definitive. Here is where I remind the readers that no calibration data whatsoever has ever been shown by the Ainslie team, and in fact they have reported temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.
We most certainly DO make the calibration of the measuring instruments known.  And the data rests on those calibrated instruments.  I'm not sure of the sense you're using the term 'calibration'?  And our temperature of the load resistor in the water showed 104 degrees.  I never measured the water temperature.  But since boiling was evident - then I think one could 'speculate' that it was in the region of 100 degrees.   I would have thought?
The resistors can be seen fairly well in the shots attached below.
I think you need to refer to Poynty's work on this TK.  His investigation was thorough.  Your's not so much.  And your selection of 'shot' not entirely representative of the 'real truth' - again, as MileHigh puts it.

Rosie Pose.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 05:33:57 AM
So TK.  On the whole I'm inclined to think that your 'claimed' replication falls on it's knees at every point.  I think you need to start again.  And I'd recommend that you do this with some adequate measuring instruments.  As fine and as antique as are your own - they do not meet the required measuring standards.  And then you need to measure the appropriate 'thing'.  So far we've seen no detailed analysis of any current flow at all.  Perhaps you misunderstood our claim.  Or perhaps you deliberately misrepresented our claim.  I'm not sure.  And nor do I much care.  Bottom line is that your arguments are spurious and unsubstantiated.  I would be delighted to see a genuine effort at replicating our claim and then seeing how this effects the draw down efficiency of the battery supply.  That would be an interesting thread - INDEED.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 05:39:23 AM
Once again, Rosemary seems to have trouble reading what's written. Compare her rant to what I actually posted. The resistors are as I described, I never mentioned the unconnected fifth resistor, I never said anything about a 10 ohm resistor at all.... and so on and so forth. She is doing what I specifically required her not to do -- distorting my data, not representing it correctly, and flat-out lying about it --  and hence I will persist in asking that she be blocked from posting here.

Quote
Based as it is on the assumption that we're using 4 x 10 Ohm resistors.  Golly.
Do you see this lie? NOWHERE did I ever say or "assume" that they are using 10 ohm resistors.




Now... moving forward without the noise:

There is another glaring discrepancy in the first paper. Several places in the text describe tests using a negative-going gate drive pulse. Yet EVERY scope shot in that paper shows the gate drive pulse going positive. This figure particularly: the text describes the negative going gate drive pulse but the scope shot clearly shows a positive pulse of around +12 volts. And yet... no current is shown in the current viewing resistor trace.
ETA: the gate drive pulse is more correctly described as a "negative going pulse".... but it has a +12 volt offset of its baseline, so when the FG signal is "off" it is actually sending a +12 volt signal to the circuit, as if it were a positive pulse of short duty cycle.  This should turn the Q1 mosfet on and cause it to conduct measureable current on the shunt signal. But it does not.... indicating, again, that this transistor may be defective in this shot.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 05:40:59 AM
So TK.  On the whole I'm inclined to think that your 'claimed' replication falls on it's knees at every point.  I think you need to start again.  And I'd recommend that you do this with some adequate measuring instruments.  As fine and as antique as are your own - they do not meet the required measuring standards.  And then you need to measure the appropriate 'thing'.  So far we've seen no detailed analysis of any current flow at all.  Perhaps you misunderstood our claim.  Or perhaps you deliberately misrepresented our claim.  I'm not sure.  And nor do I much care.  Bottom line is that your arguments are spurious and unsubstantiated.  I would be delighted to see a genuine effort at replicating our claim and then seeing how this effects the draw down efficiency of the battery supply.  That would be an interesting thread - INDEED.

Regards,
Rosemary

Since you think this is not a replication.... why don't you go post your lies and distortions somewhere else.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 05:59:43 AM
Since you think this is not a replication.... why don't you go post your lies and distortions somewhere else.
TK - if you do not want my input it can only be because you want to comment - free from contradiction or challenge.  In effect the TarBaby thread would then be as relevant as a 'gossip column' - and have no relevance to any facts at all - let alone to science.  Frankly I think that would be a gross insult to the objects of this forum - a gross insult to the integrity of our readers - a gross insult to the intelligence of both our members and our readers - and a gross abuse of impartial and relevant assessment owed to good science practice and protocols.  It would be a gross abuse of the interest owed to the public good - which requires impartiality.  And it would be a gross abuse of the 'real truth' which is MileHigh's measure of excellence - albeit that it's somewhat tautological.

Therefore I put it to you that my input most certainly IS required.  God knows what our readers would have deduced, thus far, had I not pointed out where you TARBABY circuit is NOT a replication.  Because in defiance of the evidence - or the lack of it - (one or other or both options, as preferred) - you keep insisting that it is. 

As ever,
Rosie Posee/Poser
Changed deviance to defiance - but both terms are appropriate.   8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 06:05:13 AM
Some wirewound ceramic power resistors. All are 1 Ohm.

From the top:

1 Ohm, 10 Watt, as used in Tar Baby and the NERD demo video.

1 Ohm, 5 Watt.

1 Ohm, 1 Watt.

All have similar inductances of 5-7 microHenry.

The ruler is in inches. The holes in the NERD pegboard are 1 inch apart. The holes in TarBaby's circuit board are 0.1 inch apart.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 06:08:12 AM
Some wirewound ceramic power resistors. All are 1 Ohm.

From the top:

1 Ohm, 10 Watt, as used in Tar Baby and the NERD demo video.

1 Ohm, 5 Watt.

1 Ohm, 1 Watt.

All have similar inductances of 5-7 microHenry.

The ruler is in inches. The holes in the NERD pegboard are 1 inch apart. The holes in TarBaby's circuit board are 0.1 inch apart.

Poynty Point.  If you're there.  PLEASE put TK straight.  I'm now seriously concerned that he's convinced himself that we're NOT using 1 Ohm resistors x 4 - in parallel.  You're well able to show this.  I can't.  I can't even find the appropriate shot.  It's too dark here and it's too late and my eyes are not equal to it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 06:11:04 AM
TK - if you do not want my input it can only be because you want to comment - free from contradiction or challenge.  In effect the TarBaby thread would then be as relevant as a 'gossip column' - and have no relevance to any facts at all - let alone to science.  Frankly I think that would be a gross insult to the objects of this forum - a gross insult to the integrity of our readers - a gross insult to the intelligence of both our members and our readers - and a gross abuse of impartial and relevant assessment owed to good science practice and protocols.  It would be a gross abuse of the interest owed to the public good - which requires impartiality.  And it would be a gross abuse of the 'real truth' which is MileHigh's measure of excellence - albeit that it's somewhat tautological.

Therefore I put it to you that my input most certainly IS required.  God knows what our readers would have deduced, thus far, had I not pointed out where you TARBABY circuit is NOT a replication.  Because in defiance of the evidence - or the lack of it - (one or other or both options, as preferred) - you keep insisting that it is. 

As ever,
Rosie Posee/Poser
Changed deviance to defiance - but both terms are appropriate.   8)

I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 06:34:26 AM
Just in case there was any doubt, the Clarke-Hess can and will report "negative wattage" if it detects it. The numbers in the left window can be several things, but when "PWR" or "Px10" is selected the window displays the real power figure determined by taking into account the phase relationship between the voltage and current signals detected. Here the instrument is just "floating", its input harness isn't connected to anything, and it's picking up stray EM in the DeepBunker. (Selecting the "freq" display in the left window gives me a 60 Hz indication.) Look !! Free Energy, Negative Wattage !!


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 06:41:10 AM
Poynty Point.  If you're there.  PLEASE put TK straight.  I'm now seriously concerned that he's convinced himself that we're NOT using 1 Ohm resistors x 4 - in parallel.  You're well able to show this.  I can't.  I can't even find the appropriate shot.  It's too dark here and it's too late and my eyes are not equal to it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

YET AGAIN you lie. Nowhere do I allege or assert anything other than that you are using ONE OHM, TEN WATT resistors in parallel in your demo and your work. However, your paper lists them as ONE WATT.
I can see the resistors in the pictures of your demo and I can read the labels, ffs. YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS INSANE DISTORTION OF WHAT I SAY AND SHOW.

My whole point is that the INDUCTANCE of these resistors is much higher than what your paper says that they are, and this discrepancy needs to be addressed.

Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 06:47:36 AM
Here is Yet Another refutation of a misrepresentation that Ainslie has made about Tar Baby's performance.

I refer to her complaint about the amplitude of the oscillations on the Tar Baby BATTERY trace... which once again she has wilfully ignored and lied about. This video should make it perfectly clear that:

1) the battery trace oscillations are the same amplitude as NERD shows on scope traces
2) the amplitude of the battery trace oscillations is set by finely tuning the drive from the FG or the 555
3) the current through the system depends on the oscillation amplitude and is set by 2) above
4) the load heats up in this mode, and by an amount that depends on the current in 3).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUxzOyS-ck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoUxzOyS-ck)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
I don't want your input because you are a liar. You constantly insult me and my data while you yourself can't post anything without errors in it. You constantly misrepresent what I am doing and saying, and you refuse to answer questions about your claimed work. I told you at the beginning what you were welcome to post here... and you immediately began doing the same garbage crap that you always do. I will not tolerate it. I will continue to ask Stefan to block you from posting here, and I will cite these recent posts as reasons why. You are lying, misrepresenting, and refusing to cooperate in clearing up real questions concerning your reports. Go do it somewhere else, we do NOT need you.

My dear TinselKoala,
Here's the thing.  If you did not insult our work - then I would not be insulting yours.  The original insult stems from a compulsive requirement to deny our claim based on any reason at all.  When I challenge those bases - which are insulting to me - you are thereby insulted by that challenge.  And that simply compounds those insults whereupon you lose your emotional control and then run to Stefan for appeals to 'intervene'. 

I would hope that if you are to evaluate the evidence that is shown in our papers - that you would also evaluate the actual claim.  Thus far you have not even addressed it.  It relates to the negative voltage computed across the shunt resistors.  And there most assuredly ARE 4 of them and they most assuredly are at 1 Ohm.  And their inductance has been carefully evaluated with the fine and calibrated instrument shown in our video display.  Therefore when you question those facts then you are inferring errors and those inferences are inappropriate.  And when you don't refer to the current flow measured from those resistors - then you are omitting the only relevant aspect of our claim.  And yet.  Without all that INFERENCE you have no argument.  So?  What to do?

My options are to let you continue this thread - which will make it the most biased equivalent of a scientific 'gossip column' ever to disgrace these forums.  Fraught as it is with the misrepresentations associated with any kind of 'gossip'.  Or I must interject - timeously - with some kind of protest against that gossip.  Knowing how much you resent any corrections - notwithstanding it's dire need - I also know that you're very likely to lose any kind of emotional control and that you'll 'run to Stefan' very much as my grandchildren 'run to their mother' - when they've got a complaint. 

May I remind you.  My own thread was comprehensively set ablaze by the contributions of MileHigh, fuzzytomcat, and picowatt and your good self.  My post response lagged your combined input by a factor not less than 6 and possibly as high as 10.  At no stage did I need to run to Harti.  And - on the face of it - I'd say that I was somewhat outnumbered.  But never outgunned.  So.  I put it to you that you can only comfortably operate when you are free to promote your irrelevant assessments of our claim.  And that your objects are not to evaluate anything at all  - but to put a spin on things in the thin hopes that no-one then believes our results or that they dismiss them - out of hand.  And that authority depends on the welter of support that is on 'tap' from precisely these personalities.  And I also suspect that every time that Harti bans me it's because you 4 together with that charming host who contribute to my hate blog -  send him emails - in concert - to protest to my posting anything at all.

Well.  One needs must ask why?  Why are you so anxious to apply your 'spin'?  And why must you do this without fear of 'contradiction'?  Because the disciplines of science require that everything is always challenged.  But under usual circumstances - both sides of the case needs must be evaluated.  Are you trying to promote something that is less than scientific?  Are you anxious that people don't realise your instruments aren't capable of performing the measurements that you claim?  Are you hoping that all will overlook our actual claim while you pretend that it's entirely related to the evidence of an oscillation?  Which on its own means absolutely nothing at all?  Are you persisting with the use of the wrong element resistor to avoid showing the benefits of it's higher 'iron mass' and it's higher inductance value?  Are you casting aspersions related to our shunt resistor measurements because you hope thereby to assure our readers that our measurements are fallacious?  Are you avoiding mention of the DC coupling of our oscilloscope - so that you can promote 'doubts' related to the voltage measured across the gate?  Are you avoiding any analysis of the energy dissipated in your calorimetric apparatus because you can only 'infer' a value and not actually measure it?  And why do you keep referring to my 'mendacity' if it's not to cast a slur against my good character?  And where have I 'lied'?  as you repeatedly claim. 

If you had any strength of conviction you would most certainly NOT need the rather vocal support of those who you keep appealing to - to rally.  And you would be more than ready to 'take me on'.  But you can't.  Your argument is weak.  In fact it's non-existent.  And you cannot manage anything at all when the 'real truth' (MileHigh's term, not mine) is brought to the table.  Therefore do you need to silence me.  And to effect that you'd prefer it that I was 'banned'.  That's hardly an acceptable solution.  I need to defend our claim against a valid counterclaim.  I have had no such evidence. 

Regards,
Rosemary
added some emphasis.  still not enough.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 17, 2012, 07:13:45 AM
BIPS.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 17, 2012, 03:17:07 PM

Get off this thread, Rosemary, because you are NOT CORRECT in anything you are saying here about my work and what I am showing. You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work, and you are ignorant of your topic.

I do not misrepresent your work.  That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt.  That's the first time TK.  In what is it?  25 pages or thereby?  That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested.  And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.  That's an interesting visual reference.  Why did you see need to pass it by?  So quickly?  And I see that you've finally managed to get the those oscillations consistent between each switching cycle.  Well done.  Your previous best efforts confused the repositioning of that watt meter from what you termed the 'output' and the 'input'.  Both terms are entirely inapplicable.  And then you compounded that 'confusion' with the erroneous display of a voltage applicable to that current display - at something in the region of 7 volts.  Will you please explain this.  And when and if you are showing us numbers on anything at all - then it would be as well tell let us know what those numbers represent.  Else you're using implication and allegation.  Not scientific TK.  Not at all.

And WHEN are you going to give us some kind of assessment of the wattage dissipated as heat?  You accused us of NOT doing this.  We HAVE.  But you still HAVE NOT.  In fact what you claimed is that the heat that was dissipated at the load resistor resulted from the 'twiddling' as you put it - of the offset - prior to the oscillation.  How could you determine this?   And what is the earthly good of doing your battery depletion exercise without giving us those results?  We still don't know what that rate of discharge is.  We still don't know the battery capacity.  Are you keeping this hidden?  For some reason?  Or do you rely on all that ambiguity?  Where you can IMPLY anything you like and you leave it to everyone's exhausted patience and attention - to take a stab at the sums for themselves.  And then you duck behind the need to do this by implying that if we were all sufficiently 'expert' then we'd see those well hidden values?

You're dancing the dance of the 7 veils.  We need clarity.  Kindly oblige us all.

Regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 12:37:30 AM
You do misrepresent my work in EVERY post you make, liar.
For example:
Quote
I do not misrepresent your work.  That last video that you offered was the first time that you ever showed the voltage across the shunt.  That's the first time TK.  In what is it?  25 pages or thereby?  That's a lot of testing - with no relation at all to the claim that needs to be tested.  And I notice that you skirted the shunt voltage in your anxiety to take focus away from the obvious evidence of more voltage below than above zero.

You are a liar, you constantly misrepresent my work.

This is just ONE of the many prior times I have shown the voltage across the CVR. You lie about my work with every post you make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z95kvoE7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z95kvoE7s)
And another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI)

Note the dates, you liar, and go and play somewhere else. You even made some misrepresentation comment about this last one, so I know you have seen it before. Therefore, you are a liar, because you know damn well that I have shown "shunt" or CVR traces before.

You constantly misrepresent my work. Yesterday you were claiming that I said something about a 10 ohm resistor, which I never did. Today you are claiming I haven't shown CVR traces, which I clearly have. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, Rosemary.

Now. Please go away and lie about somebody else's work for a change.


WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 01:06:16 AM
Some recent quotes from Ainslie:

Quote
TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery. 


Quote
. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not





Preserved for posterity, emphasis mine.

One simply must wonder though... if over unity is not being claimed..... why is the Overunity Prize being applied for?

And again the claim of COP _greater than_ infinity is made. Varying levels of efficiency, all exceeding infinity. COP numbers--- different numbers--- all over infinity. All different, all over infinity. There it is in black and white, in her own words as posted on this very thread. She's not claiming over unity... just several different efficiencies, all different, all exceeding infinity.

And again... several more claims are made without any references or support. If high heat can be achieved with the single mosfet, positive gate drive _and 72 volts_.... why then was only 48 volts used for the demo of this mode? One battery was pulled out of the stack without explanation, and this has never yet been explained.... by anyone except me.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:46:28 AM
This is getting really interesting.  TK.  My goodness.  You DID reference those shunt voltages?  And I missed them?  Somehow?  I'm getting old. Clearly.  Delighted that you set me straight because if you didn't I wouldn't have noticed them.  God forbid.  Luckily I've made up for lost time and can now count myself in as one of the 69 viewers that it has well deserved.  Here are some questions against the first video referenced.  Hopefully more of our readers will take the trouble to look at this - CLOSELY.

Your first video referenced 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
.  Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
.  It's really easily managed.  Yet you didn't see some need for this?
.  Or is that display there?  In the right hand corner at the top?
.  Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
.  But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
.  ALWAYS
.  And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
.  When this would have got to the heart of the matter
.  so easily?
.  And that trick with the ground?
.  And all that INSINUATION?
.  Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
.  Therefore the circuit is only finally open
.  Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
.  When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
.  Shouldn't you have explained this?
.  Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
.  I'd have thought?
 
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'?  Surely not?  I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics.  :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit.  It's not your style.  I see that now.

Regards TK
Rosie Pose

By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine.  Is that a warehouse?  Full of equipment?  Did you officially register your loan of it?  For that little video of yours?  I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.   
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 04:14:33 AM
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW SOME TESTING OF YOUR OWN? Never, that's when.

Not at all TK.  I have some background work to do.

.  I need assurance that the thread that I report on will not be 'flamed'.
.  Again
.  Or locked
.  Before the work is finished
.  Because that WILL jeopardise the technology
.  And our hard work
.  And the good of public interest
.  In relation to this claim
.  And I need assurance that the applied protocols will then constitute unequivocal proof
.  Which will take some negotiating
.  With all parties.

And I need to establish a series of tests as representative of that proof
And then I need to establish that proof as it relates to our thesis

Then - when that is managed
.  I need to establish the setting for those tests
.  And the methods required to bring this to the public arena
.  That nothing can be 'fudged' or 'falsely represented'
.  Because I know your tendency to 'imply and infer' such
.  And I want to be sure that you have no grounds for complaint.

Then - there would be no point in testing this
.  If I do not closely follow your work
.  Lest you negate the value of the tests
.  On spurious bases.
.  Which means that I have to study your arguments
.  Even before I present my own

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 04:38:27 AM
And guys, while I'm at it and FOR THE RECORD.

We use 4 x 1 Ohm 10 Watt resistors. 
We have a 10 Ohm resistor that is disconnected to the circuit

And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY.  And not only is COP infinity yet to be explained but it needs must have some qualification.  As the levels of that COP are VARIABLE.  Semantically confusing - but nonetheless - required.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

added
Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever.  What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.  The apparent COP Infinity is simply the result of our standard measurement protocols that only allow for one energy supply.  Therefore the term COP Infinity is simply an artifact related to one of the many anomalies that we're exposing in this circuit. 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 18, 2012, 04:54:47 AM
What we argue is that there is a second energy supply source from the circuit material itself.
Rosemary,

What material in the circuit is used up in the process? All, one specific?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 05:24:53 AM
Guys,
The following is part of a background 'on going' complaint against me and my work - written to Stefan - with the general appeal that I be banned and thereby prevented from defending our work against any spurious arguments presented by any members at all.  Since I am heartily sick and tired of dealing with these background 'whispers' I am making that complaint public knowledge.  And I argue it accordingly.

The complainant states...
Stefan,I would agree totally now with Rosemary's continued misrepresentation of any facts by anyone presented is constantly challenged with uneducated nonsense babble from Rosemary.
My education is well equal to the task in hand.  And my language skills are considerably better than the 'babble' here referred to.
The continued denial of Rosemary in her testing and evaluation data being incorrect from data collection to the interpretation of that data.
The evaluation of that data is NOT incorrect.  And since the evaluation is related to the 'interpretation' then that qualification is redundant.
The simple question of "which" schematic was or was not used and presented in Rosemary's BLOG, PWESwiki and paper #2 to this day has not been answered.
The correct schematic applied to our tests has most CERTAINLY been answered.  If I knew how to access my locked thread I'd prove it.
continued/...
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 05:25:22 AM
All I see from Rosemary is lurking around attacking posters with anything unrelated to the conversation like a addict looking for a fix to get their rush.
I am indeed 'addicted' to defending our technology from 'attack'.  It's URGENTLY required lest spurious objections mitigate against the evidence and our public interest and public good thereby get jeopardised.
Rosemary still doesn't understand the thread she got locked down was from her own fault by giving incorrect information, unable to justify the results of the information she did provided, unable to answer all the questions directed towards the information she provided, new required additional testing she was directed to accomplish and didn't and to stop the redundant repeating of her incorrect test results.
This was NOT why the thread was locked.  It was locked because Stefan was innundated with claims from those such as this poster and TK flaming that thread to prevent any kind of decent progress of a discussion related to the required test parameters.
The requirement for further testing for a new thread is nonsense without a "firm" timeline, although everyone knows she isn't going to do any anyway as it would disrupt her prized unproven THESIS that this is all about, nothing really about a device or reproduction.
The ONLY thing that is delaying this is a firm undertaking by Stefan NOT to lock those threads before the completion of proposed series of tests which cover up to 7 different 'draw down' tests required against not less than 3 circuits to be tested.
Rosemary is a ignorant person that lives a life of false statements and bloviating her accomplishments for COP>INFINITY to which no one agrees with but herself.
In the first place I DO NOT advertise any accomplishments - let alone towards claims of COP>INFINITY - which we argue is nonsense.  And IF I am ignorant it does not, in any way, meet the level of ignorance related to this communication or to the communicator - who is STILL unaware of the extent of our claim. And there are many, many, many people who entirely agree that our measurements indicate COP Infinity.  At it's least this question needs to be addressed as there is no explanation for this within the standard model.  Therefore would it progress the interests of science, and the implications of that measurement would indicate that there is some real benefit to us all - to apply this technology.  As it exposes the evidence of an alternate energy supply source that has not, heretofore, been fully exploited.  And I do not bloviate.  I am merely articulate.  Which is something that this poor poster IS NOT.
 
 There you have it.  This and variations of this communication continually FLOOD Stefan.  Is it any wonder that he simply locks my threads - or bans me?  To date I've resisted answering them.  Here's an exception.
 
 Regards,
 Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 05:35:14 AM
Rosemary,

What material in the circuit is used up in the process? All, one specific?

We propose that no atomic material comes into the equation.  We're not transmuting elements - as does Rossi.  What we're proposing is a 'binding' field which may explain the Casimir Effect.  This is extraneous to the atom and binds structures into molecules or into coalesced matter.  This is proposed to be the 'thing' that transfers its energies through space.  But it's 'hidden' in the field - a material that structures our magnetic fields.  It's apparent 'out' of the field structure and manifests as 'heat'.  In effect we're proposing that magnetic fields are structured by magnetic dipoles that exceed light speed and respond to an immutable principle of charge balance.  But I'm not sure I can elaborate on this on this thread.  Read my blog.

Regards
Rosie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 05:48:23 AM
Rosemary:

Quote
This is extraneous to the atom and binds structures into molecules or into coalesced matter.

They are called chemical bonds, not zipons.

Quote
A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) that allows the formation of chemical substances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance) that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electromagnetic force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force) attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons) and nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus), or as the result of a dipole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole) attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond) or ionic bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bond) and "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force#Dipole-dipole_interactions), the London dispersion force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force) and hydrogen bonding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bonding).
Since opposite charges attract via a simple electromagnetic force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force), the negatively charged electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrons) that are orbiting the nucleus and the positively charged protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protons) in the nucleus attract each other. Also, an electron positioned between two nuclei will be attracted to both of them. Thus, the most stable configuration of nuclei and electrons is one in which the electrons spend more time between nuclei, than anywhere else in space. These electrons cause the nuclei to be attracted to each other, and this attraction results in the bond. However, this assembly cannot collapse to a size dictated by the volumes of these individual particles. Due to the matter wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave) nature of electrons and their smaller mass, they occupy a much larger amount of volume compared with the nuclei, and this volume occupied by the electrons keeps the atomic nuclei relatively far apart, as compared with the size of the nuclei themselves.
In general, strong chemical bonding is associated with the sharing or transfer of electrons between the participating atoms. The atoms in molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule), crystals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal), metals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal) and diatomic gases— indeed most of the physical environment around us— are held together by chemical bonds, which dictate the structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure) and the bulk properties of matter.


And there is no "fire" on the surface of the sun.
You have a long long long way to go baby.


MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 05:53:41 AM
Rosemary:

They are called chemical bonds, not zipons.


And there is no "fire" on the surface of the sun.
You have a long long long way to go baby.


MileHigh
Hello MileHigh,

We most certainly concur that it's a chemical bonding.  But chemical bonding does not explain the Casimir effect.  And there is most certainly a fire on the surface of the sun.  It's a 'nuclear fire'.  If it weren't we wouldn't get the benefit of all those photons.  But yes, I've got a long way to go.  And that's the road needed to educate the likes of you MileHigh.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 06:02:09 AM
Some recent quotes from Ainslie:

Two days ago she said

Quote
<blockquote>TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery.  </blockquote>

If you do not claim overunity you have no business applying for an OVERUNITY PRIZE. And if you are claiming that useful work can be done without depleting a power source, you are in fact claiming overunity.
In other words, you are lying again.

Quote
<blockquote>. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not


And now she says,

Quote

And I NEVER reference COP>INFINITY. 

Actually when you say your levels measured to exceed infinity... that is EXACTLY what you reference, liar.

AND

Quote

Actually we do not argue COP Infinity ever.   
Actually... you do, over and over, as in your own words above.

Rosemary, you are a liar. You contradict yourself over and over, you constantly misrepresent and lie about  my work, and this thread IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS IGNORANT THEORIES.





</blockquote>
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 06:15:39 AM
Hello TK,

Nice to see you around.  I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to address this post.  Then I'll move on to the other three video references.  Because I KNOW how badly you want to keep your thread topical.

Rosie Pose

Your first video referenced 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
.  Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
.  It's really easily managed.  Yet you didn't see some need for this?
.  Or is that display there?  In the right hand corner at the top?
.  Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
.  But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
.  ALWAYS
.  And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
.  When this would have got to the heart of the matter
.  so easily?
.  And that trick with the ground?
.  And all that INSINUATION?
.  Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
.  Therefore the circuit is only finally open
.  Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
.  When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
.  Shouldn't you have explained this?
.  Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
.  I'd have thought?
 
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'?  Surely not?  I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics.  :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit.  It's not your style.  I see that now.

Regards TK
Rosie Pose

By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine.  Is that a warehouse?  Full of equipment?  Did you officially register your loan of it?  For that little video of yours?  I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.   

ADDED

I see I'm wrong.  He was here - and ....  GONE again.  I've just checked through 'who's on line'?  I can't think why he won't answer this post.   :o
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 06:34:02 AM
My dear TinselKoala

I can't answer this post of yours without also explaining the thesis.  And in terms of this 'preclusion'...
Rosemary, you are a liar. You contradict yourself over and over, you constantly misrepresent and lie about  my work, and this thread IS NO PLACE FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS IGNORANT THEORIES.Some recent quotes from Ainslie:
Then I can't answer any of your points here...
Two days ago she said...If you do not claim overunity you have no business applying for an OVERUNITY PRIZE. And if you are claiming that useful work can be done without depleting a power source, you are in fact claiming overunity.
In other words, you are lying again.

And now she says,

Actually when you say your levels measured to exceed infinity... that is EXACTLY what you reference, liar.

Be reasonable.  :( :o 8)

Rosie Posie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 18, 2012, 06:47:49 AM
Rosemary:

Quote
And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?

That would be a first step.

What the NERDs failed to do was investigate that "COP infinity" negative "vv" value any further.  You collectively hit an intellectual wall and could go no further.

If your DSO had the bandwidth, you could have looked at the individual oscillation waveforms at 2 MHz.  You could have looked at  the battery "voltage" waveform and the current sensing resistor waveform and deduced precisely when and how much power was going to the load and precisely when and how much power was being returned from the load.  Then you could have examined these numbers and analyzed the situation to see if they really made sense.

For example, when you were measuring a phase when power was being returned to the battery, what was the battery voltage at that time?  Was it artificially high?  If yes, was that the true battery voltage?  These are issues that you never even explored.

You never actually tried to understand what was going on over an individual cycle and to explain exactly how you got a negative number.

You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.

As TK said, you all got excited about seeing a negative number in a little box.

You may be going through yet another "smug phase" but we all know how this story is really going to end.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 18, 2012, 07:12:09 AM
TK,

I have been looking at all available waveforms and I am a bit puzzled regarding the large AC excursions at the BAT+.  Particularly in your Tek video where you scoped right at the battery.  I believe that determination of the SLA/gel cell battery AC impedance is in order.  I would have thought that the battery would be a bit more capacitive in nature than is apparently indicated by the scope shots.  Possibly the interconnect inductance is higher than expected, or the batteries themselves do indeed have a high AC impedance.

You might consider doing a few tests to measure the battery's AC impedance.

As a preliminary test, with your circuit osc'ing scope each battery connector in the series string of batteries and note how much AC you see at each battery interconnect, particularly at the first battery terminal above ground.

As a second test, using an unconnected, isolated battery, you might try cap coupling your FG output to a battery and measure the FG open-circuit versus in-circuit voltage at 1.5MHz.  I would use an electrolytic paralleled by a ceramic for the cap coupling.  You can verify that the reactance of your paralleled cap is sufficiently low for the test by placing the cap directly across the FG output (set to 10VPP and 1.5MHz) and measuring across the cap with your scope, which should indicate that the cap is pretty much a short circuit at 1.5MHz by seeing very little signal on the scope.

To prevent any surges going into the FG, I would charge the cap before attaching the FG or short the FG terminals when the cap is first connected to the battery.  Once the cap is charged there will be no DC for the FG to deal with.

Place the FG and scope ground at BAT-.  Measure/set the FG open circuit VPP prior to attaching the FG to BAT+ and then measure the VPP at BAT+ with FG connected (thru the DC blocking cap above).  Assuming the FG is 50R, you can calculate AC impedance from the observed drop.  FG amplitude can be anything convenient, say 10VPP to start with.  If you need more drop, or for more convenience, add an additional series resistor in the FG output path.  You can then alternately probe both sides of the added resistor to get your Vdrop.  Keep all leads as short as possible to reduce lead inductance. 

Of course, all of the above is just a suggestion...

PW






 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 18, 2012, 07:48:36 AM
Pico

Batteries are not real real good at discharging or charging quickly like caps. A 1.5mhz, the batt may not be taking or giving a charge almost at all. that would be interesting to find out.

And the connections at the batteries I believe are trying to replicate Roses wiring ways to get as close to a replication as possible. No stone unturned.  ;)

I know what your talking about. Your talking about good wiring habits. I think the same way for a lot of things. But sometimes we just bust out the clip leads and goto town for a quickie.  ;D

Mags

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 07:52:36 AM
What the NERDs failed to do was investigate that "COP infinity" negative "vv" value any further.  You collectively hit an intellectual wall and could go no further.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have investigated more thoroughly.  From detailed waveform analysis - to full on power integration - as parts of the cycle - for the full cycle - and for multiple cycles.  We've tested with a function generator and with a 555 switch.  We've applied it with a continual negative impulse at the gate - and we've tested it on multiple loads.
If your DSO had the bandwidth, you could have looked at the individual oscillation waveforms at 2 MHz.  You could have looked at  the battery "voltage" waveform and the current sensing resistor waveform and deduced precisely when and how much power was going to the load and precisely when and how much power was being returned from the load.  Then you could have examined these numbers and analyzed the situation to see if they really made sense.
EXACTLY what we do in full on power integration.
For example, when you were measuring a phase when power was being returned to the battery, what was the battery voltage at that time?  Was it artificially high?  If yes, was that the true battery voltage?  These are issues that you never even explored.
The waveform as it relates to the batteries' chemical interaction have been omitted.  And it most certainly IS required.  But that would need to be done by chemists.  We do not know if the battery is ever recharged.  What we DO know is that the advantage to that system is irrespective of the benefit to the supply source.  It merits investigation simply by itself.  Again.  It makes no earthly sense to be left with a negative wattage. That needs explaining - no matter what is happening at the battery.  Surely you see this? 
You never actually tried to understand what was going on over an individual cycle and to explain exactly how you got a negative number.
This is NOT true.  Read our 2nd paper.
You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.
There is only one way to measure power delivered and power dissipated.  Well established measurement protocols.  They can't be improved on.
As TK said, you all got excited about seeing a negative number in a little box.
Both you and he would need to say this.  It suits your argument.  But it is not the 'real truth' as you put it MileHigh.
You may be going through yet another "smug phase" but we all know how this story is really going to end.
What SMUG phase?  I most certainly am NOT SMUG.  About what?  For God's sake?  And IF this does not merit a full investigation which is ALL that we've motivated in our paper - then I will, indeed, be deeply disappointed. 

Regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Magluvin on April 18, 2012, 08:00:55 AM
Ya know, this makes me think. You know how a battery, if it sits at 12.7v and we put a 10 second 10a charge to it, and what ever voltage is read at the battery when the charge is removed, we will see it go down. Even if you hit it real quick, you get something similar.

So im wondering if the battery can act as a capacitor above certain freq and no actual battery action really happens at all, charge or discharge. So that may be what you are seeing in the scope shots, is the battery just playing capacitor above certain frequencies.

So in my first statement, the cap may be taking on some of the charge from the charger and is stored in this capacitance. And when the charger is taken away, the capacitance charge , being higher than the battery(chemical charge side) discharges into a chemical charge, the battery.   Lol  just reread it and laughed. But oh well.  ;) One of those just before I fall over sleeping posts.  ;)

Just thinkin.

Mags
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 01:55:58 PM
@PW:

Thank you for your suggestions. Wouldn't it be more interesting, though, if RA did those things FIRST? I mean, the way this usually works is that the CLAIMANT responds to suggestions for tests from those who are trying to reproduce the effects of the claimant. In this case.... I have already reproduced everything that the claimant has actually shown, without having any cooperation from the claimant, and in fact I've been working around the many obstacles put in place by the claimant.

Now we have the claimant ranting and raving, demanding that I do things or answer questions.... when she herself has not addressed any of the important issues. Note the pattern in the claimant's posts: I make a point of difficulty or inconsistency in the NERD reports. I even illustrate the point with a video demonstration. The claimant returns with post after post of irrelevancies, misrepresentations and outright lies about what I show and covers up the issues completely, until pages go by and the issue of importance isn't addressed. But I don't forget about them. Here are just a few which have been buried by this technique of the claimant.


1. It is not possible to get a simple 555 timer circuit powered by the main batteries to produce a negative-going gate drive impulse--- which must be more negative than the most negative pole of the main batteries. Some solution -- like the one I have used -- must be found for this problem.

2. The impedance values given for the NERD current viewing resistors are implausible and need to be repeated in a way that is unequivocal--- like I have shown. Measure some known inductances and show that the measurement agrees with their known values, then measure the shunt in the same manner.

3. A claim of COP > INFINITY has indeed been made several times by the claimant in her own words, as I have shown REPEATEDLY. Does she wish now to withdraw that claim? I think that would be a good idea. Further, this claim is also equivalent to a claim of "overunity" performance. Yet she stated yesterday that she DOES NOT CLAIM OVERUNITY.
Fine.... I will expect to see a formal withdrawal of the Prize Claim, as well as some effort on her part to clear up all the statements on the internet where she DOES claim COP>INFINITY and overunity performance. But then I expect to win the lottery someday too.

4. PW's queries about the possibly blown mosfet are important and have not been answered adequately by the claimant. The correct way to answer PW's points is to GET A KNOWN GOOD MOSFET, demonstrate that it is good, and then make the waveforms shown on the scope again. This would take 5 minutes to do, and is something like what I do all the time. Many times, someone has asked me a legitimate question or made a suggestion for a test or variation, and by the next day, sometimes within the hour, I make a video showing the results.  The claimant in this case has produced NO NEW DATA OR TESTING since over a year ago, yet there are many questions that could be cleared up in moments, with a cooperative attitude and a video camera.

5. The claimant constantly misrepresents and mischaracterises my work, lying about it even. Examples of this are on every page of this thread where the claimant has posted, especially in the last few days. One of my videos of the CVR trace was even commented on by the claimant when it was first posted.... and yet now the claimant, lying once again, pretends that they are new. Most of the "questions" from the claimant have to do with her own misrepresentations and lies about my work... witness all the accusations and ranting about "10 ohm" resistors yesterday when I said no such thing in the first place.

And of course there are many more similar points.

Once again, I say that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in the same testing. This is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses. Is this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating.  Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.

If the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.

One that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate  this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different.  The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.

A cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.

I, as a builder and tester of claims, do not have to address random insinuating questions that the claimant tosses at me, I don't have to explain where I get my test equipment and I don't have to conform to anyone's schedule ... because I am not making extraordinary claims and I'm not applying for any monetary prizes based on my claims. IF I WERE.... then I would and SHOULD be expected to answer these kinds of questions and give these explanations. But of course the present claimant will not cooperate and instead wants to obstruct. Once again, my "claim" is that Tar Baby performs just like the claimant's device in all significant respects. If the claimant wishes to demonstrate otherwise.... that is up to the claimant, and the longer she delays the worse things look for her claims. I have demonstrated that Tar Baby does do everything that the claimant's device has actually been shown to do. It is LONG PAST time for the claimant to show that her device does something that Tar Baby cannot: heat a load without discharging its batteries.

At the beginning of this thread I stated what it was about and what my goals and purposes are. When the thread was reopened I stated the conditions under which the claimant was welcome to post here. Among those conditions was that no claims be made WITHOUT EVIDENCE, references, data, checkable and external. Another condition was that the claimant stop misrepresenting and lying about my work. Yet the claimant has chosen not to respect these simple and reasonable conditions and has continued with her campaign of insult, non-cooperation and active hindrance of the work going on here, while at the same time making NO progress at all towards her own testing. It would take three days to determine unequivocally whether her batteries are discharging.... in other words it could have been done several times already, had she only stopped talking and started working.

This is not the place to discuss the "theories" of RA. This is a thread about testing the Tar Baby and showing that it performs like the NERD device or doesn't. I've shown many tests and variations and I've shown that there are discrepancies in the data from the NERD device that I am comparing to. The correct way to deal with these is for the claimant to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong, if I am, by showing comparable tests and checkable, repeatable data. More talk, more claims without evidence, and especially reference to any "theory" or conjecture, is out of place and isn't helpful.

Let's see a simple photograph of one of the NERD resistors hooked up to an inductance meter reading 500 nanoHenry or less as the value, and another with the meter reading a known inductance correctly. For example.  I've shown a reliable reading of 7 microHenry on an apparently identical resistor, which calls into question yet another bit of data reported by the NERDs. This issue could be cleared up in moments.... and would be.... if there only were a cooperative and knowledgeable and skilful claimant involved. Instead the claimant bloviates for pages, insults my equipment, makes innuendoes and aspersions, and NEVER addresses the issue other than to resort to an appeal to authority and more claims without evidence.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 02:21:50 PM
@MileHigh:
Of course you can see that what she says in her reply to you is mostly garbage. Especially the part about "integration". The "integrations" that she has shown on the scope traces are incorrectly performed (not incorporating shunt value, not integrating the correct waveforms, not integrating over a suitable sampling interval, not accounting for probe skew, etc) and her values come from the data dumps to spreadsheet analysis, NOT live integration of proper waveforms to determine energy flows. Anyone who is familiar with the use of oscilloscopes for power measurements can confirm this, and the information that supports me is easily available from the scope manufacturers and others.

The "power dissipation" claims she makes are also false. There is indeed more than one way to measure power dissipated, she does not use "standard protocols" at all, and so on. But of course you know this too.

Her ignorance regarding the use of the Clarke-Hess sampling integrating power meter -- an "industry standard" instrument being used exactly as designed -- is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on a real limitation (the manufacturer's cited bandwidth of accuracy) she gets muddled about how it's connected in the circuit...even though it is connected exactly as an oscilloscope (with its own CVR) is connected. In other words, she again betrays her monumental wilful ignorance of proper standard power testing protocols, while at the same time proclaiming that she knows more than anyone else about it.

I can easily accept that the readings of the CH may be off by a few percent due to the bandwidth accuracy limitation. However, it is being used correctly and it's monitoring the same circuit "input" point as the NERDs monitor, and in addition it also monitors something they did not: the power _delivered_ to the load. Stated another way, it is monitoring the power drawn by the load, or yet another way.... the power that must be dissipated in the load. The CH's accuracy in this regard has been rigorously tested USING A CALORIMETER-- a real one -- and the CH's readings of power dissipation by the load agree with calorimetric measurements. Call the bandwidth into question: OK, that is a real issue, an empirical one, and can be addressed by calibration against standards. Call the hookups and the basic methodology and basic accuracy into question -- that's just ignorant whining and is without merit.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
Imagine, if you will, a simple circuit. One twelve volt battery, a black box (containing a 555 timer and some other cheap parts) and a pair of output wires. Call this a FG if you like, since it's set to produce a square wave of period one second, going positive and negative five volts, just like a real FG powering some LEDs in the demo I showed concerning FG polarity. (This could even be arranged by a simple relay in the black box and the Secret of DPDT for polarity reversal.)

Now, take your isolated-ground oscilloscope and hook one channel to the battery and the other channel to a "shunt" in one of the output wires going to your LED antiparallel pair. Turn the system on. What do you see?
You see a battery voltage that is always positive, and you see a current trace that goes positive (forward) for half a second, then negative (backward) for half a second. Multiply these two traces together and what do you get? An instantaneous power curve, of course... don't you? Integrate that curve... and what do you get? Does the result of the integration indicate the power being used (dissipated) to light up the LEDs ?

I leave the answer, and the consideration of the implications, to the reader.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:11:33 PM
1. It is not possible to get a simple 555 timer circuit powered by the main batteries to produce a negative-going gate drive impulse--- which must be more negative than the most negative pole of the main batteries. Some solution -- like the one I have used -- must be found for this problem.
Then use a separate battery.  And monitor it's voltage to determine the output.  That's simple.

2. The impedance values given for the NERD current viewing resistors are implausible and need to be repeated in a way that is unequivocal--- like I have shown. Measure some known inductances and show that the measurement agrees with their known values, then measure the shunt in the same manner.
Our impedance was determined by measurements made by 'EXPERTS' on excellent and calibrated machines from well respected laboratories.  And whether their inductance values are greater or less - will not make an ounce of difference to the negative value of the current flow determined from the voltage across those shunts.  And it is that negative current flow that predominates each cycle that is of interest and is the entire substance of the claim.

3. A claim of COP > INFINITY has indeed been made several times by the claimant in her own words, as I have shown REPEATEDLY. Does she wish now to withdraw that claim? I think that would be a good idea. Further, this claim is also equivalent to a claim of "overunity" performance. Yet she stated yesterday that she DOES NOT CLAIM OVERUNITY.
We do NOT claim COP> INFINITY.  We MEASURE COP Infinity.  That's NOT the same thing.  We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source.  Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY.  What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source.  THEN - there would be no further EVIDENCE of COP Infinity. But then we do not know how to measure the energy.  Any more.  Because those new protocols need to be forged by EXPERTS TK.  Not by you.  As it is you can't even get your head around this distinction.  And to this end we have written that paper.

Fine.... I will expect to see a formal withdrawal of the Prize Claim, as well as some effort on her part to clear up all the statements on the internet where she DOES claim COP>INFINITY and overunity performance. But then I expect to win the lottery someday too.
IF there is an alternate supply of energy that has, heretofore, NOT been factored into power analysis - then the EVIDENCE would be that we would have exceeded unity.  The prize is offered for over unity.  Therefore we would most certainly qualify for any over unity prize.  Whether or not we demand that prize is immaterial.  It's our qualification for that prize that's at issue.  Because when the 'new energy source' is accepted - then too the there will be no further resistance to the possibility.  It will become widely accepted and widely applied.  And THAT's our real prize.  Nothing else.

/...
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:13:05 PM
continued/...
4. PW's queries about the possibly blown mosfet are important and have not been answered adequately by the claimant. The correct way to answer PW's points is to GET A KNOWN GOOD MOSFET, demonstrate that it is good, and then make the waveforms shown on the scope again. This would take 5 minutes to do, and is something like what I do all the time. Many times, someone has asked me a legitimate question or made a suggestion for a test or variation, and by the next day, sometimes within the hour, I make a video showing the results.  The claimant in this case has produced NO NEW DATA OR TESTING since over a year ago, yet there are many questions that could be cleared up in moments, with a cooperative attitude and a video camera.
Nor will I.  Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable.  And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you.  You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members.  I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'.  And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim.  Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.

5. The claimant constantly misrepresents and mischaracterises my work, lying about it even. Examples of this are on every page of this thread where the claimant has posted, especially in the last few days. One of my videos of the CVR trace was even commented on by the claimant when it was first posted.... and yet now the claimant, lying once again, pretends that they are new. Most of the "questions" from the claimant have to do with her own misrepresentations and lies about my work... witness all the accusations and ranting about "10 ohm" resistors yesterday when I said no such thing in the first place.
You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors.  I DENY THIS.  You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim.  It is IRRELEVANT to our claim.  What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim.  In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim.  Let me remind you.  Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  That is the point of our claim.  Again.  Has this sunk in yet? 

Once again, I say that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in the same testing.
IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory.  And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim.  Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT.  You have only ATTEMPTED THIS.  And failed. 
 
/...
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
continued/...
This is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses.
WHAT measurements?  WHAT analysis?  Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis.  And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.

Is this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating.  Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.
Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests.  I have been bitten.  I know how you operate.  Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim. 

If the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.
So you keep telling us.  The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity.  I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS.  Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk.  Unfortunately.

One that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate  this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different.  The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.
IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance.  And the impedance relates to the applied frequency.  If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt.  And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply.  Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim.  Do you even read my answers? 

A cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.
To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame.  One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy.  Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:15:03 PM
continued/...
I, as a builder and tester of claims, do not have to address random insinuating questions that the claimant tosses at me, I don't have to explain where I get my test equipment and I don't have to conform to anyone's schedule ... because I am not making extraordinary claims and I'm not applying for any monetary prizes based on my claims. IF I WERE.... then I would and SHOULD be expected to answer these kinds of questions and give these explanations. But of course the present claimant will not cooperate and instead wants to obstruct. Once again, my "claim" is that Tar Baby performs just like the claimant's device in all significant respects. If the claimant wishes to demonstrate otherwise.... that is up to the claimant, and the longer she delays the worse things look for her claims. I have demonstrated that Tar Baby does do everything that the claimant's device has actually been shown to do. It is LONG PAST time for the claimant to show that her device does something that Tar Baby cannot: heat a load without discharging its batteries.
You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing.  We keep asking for evidence of this.  You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence.  Where?  In those videos? 

At the beginning of this thread I stated what it was about and what my goals and purposes are. When the thread was reopened I stated the conditions under which the claimant was welcome to post here. Among those conditions was that no claims be made WITHOUT EVIDENCE, references, data, checkable and external. Another condition was that the claimant stop misrepresenting and lying about my work. Yet the claimant has chosen not to respect these simple and reasonable conditions and has continued with her campaign of insult, non-cooperation and active hindrance of the work going on here, while at the same time making NO progress at all towards her own testing. It would take three days to determine unequivocally whether her batteries are discharging.... in other words it could have been done several times already, had she only stopped talking and started working.
My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim.  When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests.  Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void.  YOU have made this my full time concern.  Not me.

This is not the place to discuss the "theories" of RA. This is a thread about testing the Tar Baby and showing that it performs like the NERD device or doesn't. I've shown many tests and variations and I've shown that there are discrepancies in the data from the NERD device that I am comparing to. The correct way to deal with these is for the claimant to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong, if I am, by showing comparable tests and checkable, repeatable data. More talk, more claims without evidence, and especially reference to any "theory" or conjecture, is out of place and isn't helpful.
While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim.  This requirement is ABSURD  and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM.  How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim?  Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient?  Without that thesis - there IS no claim.  The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS.  NOTHING ELSE.

Let's see a simple photograph of one of the NERD resistors hooked up to an inductance meter reading 500 nanoHenry or less as the value, and another with the meter reading a known inductance correctly. For example.  I've shown a reliable reading of 7 microHenry on an apparently identical resistor, which calls into question yet another bit of data reported by the NERDs. This issue could be cleared up in moments.... and would be.... if there only were a cooperative and knowledgeable and skilful claimant involved. Instead the claimant bloviates for pages, insults my equipment, makes innuendoes and aspersions, and NEVER addresses the issue other than to resort to an appeal to authority and more claims without evidence.
I've argued this AT LENGTH.  Just go back and CHECK your facts.  This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.

Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 03:17:30 PM
Let me list some of the real differences between Tar Baby and the NERD device.

1. TB has the same medium-duty anodized aluminium heatsinks on all 5 mosfets. These are commercial heatsinks designed for the TO-247 package and heat-transfer paste is used and the mounting bolt is torqued to spec.
The NERD has the Q1 on a small apparently improvised heatsink and the Q2s on much larger, also apparently improvised hunks of finned aluminium. I can't tell whether heat transfer paste or electrical isolation was used. Since the circuit is a common-drain circuit, electrical isolation from the heatsinks isn't necessary, but thermal paste should be used.

2. TB has sockets on both ends of cables to connect the mosfets to the motherboard. NERD uses soldered connections at the mosfet leads themselves (a potential source of damage) and clipleads terminating onto threaded rods for the Q2 connections (a potential source of noisy, high-resistance contacts) , and crimped automotive ring connectors for most of the rest of the circuit (ditto).

3. TB has 4, 1 Ohm, 10 Watt power resistors in parallel as the current viewing resistor (called the "shunt" by the NERDs). These are ordinary "cement" type wirewound ceramic-encased power resistors of the common type, ubiquitous world-wide and clearly marked. They have a reliably measured inductance of 7 microHenry each and a total stack inductance of slightly under 2 microHenry, which includes some small lead length. The NERD device uses what appear to be identical resistors... they are even marked the same, except for the manufacturer... and they are listed as such in the NERD table of materials. But the cited inductance in the NERD non-publications is given as 110 nanoHenry.... a seemingly implausibly low value, not explained or confirmed anywhere.

4. TB has a load inductance, including lead wires, of 74 microHenry. A commercial water heater load apparently comparable to the NERD load also has a measured inductance of 73-74 microHenry. The NERD device load has a stated inductance value of only a few microHenry.... also implausibly low. It is possible that this load is indeed "custom built" to achieve this low inductance value. Considering the NERD team's demonstrated difficulty with measurements and calculations, I would like to see this measurement repeated reliably and confirmed... as I just don't believe it.

5. TB has been shown to discharge its batteries when running in modes that produce measurable load heating. No comparable testing has been shown for the NERD device.

6. TB makes no claims wrt COP or overunity performance, other than that when analysed by the same methods as NERD, the same results will be obtained. NERD, on the other hand, claims overunity performance, COP>INFINITY, load heating without battery depletion, and experimental confirmation of a theory with energy coming from superluminal zipons.

7. TB can use either IRF830a mosfets or the IRFPG50. NERD is limited to the PG50 -- but I'll bet it would work just the same and give the NERDs the same results if they used the 830as.

8. TB can use a 555 timer to make a negative-going gate drive pulse and so does not need a function generator. NERD has never demonstrated running using a 555 timer, especially not in the negative-going gate drive pulse mode.

9. TB is built compactly and uses small lightweight batteries, hence could fit within the criteria of the Overunity Prize.... if it were applying, that is. The NERD device is large and uses lots of big heavy batteries, and the rules would have to be stretched (not to mention credulity) to allow it to compete in the first place.

10. TB uses a small piece of commercial circuit board material for its motherboard, with 0.1 inch hole spacing. NERD uses a much larger piece of white material that looks like thick pegboard, with 1/4 inch holes on a 1 inch grid.

These are real differences. Do they make the difference? Well... that is what side-by-side testing is designed to reveal. Unfortunately it is difficult to perform side-by-side testing when one side simply refuses to show up for the tests.

In sports... this is usually considered a default victory for the team that DOES show up.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 03:25:36 PM
If one measurement or value in a paper reporting an experiment is in error or somehow otherwise incorrect.... then every other measurement is also questionable. Ainslie has shown so many incorrect calculations, interpretations, misprints, typos, mistaken claims and outright lies that YET ANOTHER apparent discrepancy hardly counts. But what it does do is show the mendacity of the claimant, who has made many errors of fact and refuses to correct them.
The present insistence that they aren't claiming overunity performance, but only "measuring" it... when those measurements have been shown to be wrong (not by me, but by .99, in exquisite detail)... is another example of the prevarication that is Ainslie's trademark.

IF YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING OVERUNITY YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR AN OVERUNITY PRIZE. And IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR AN OVERUNITY PRIZE YOU ARE CLAIMING OVERUNITY. What is so difficult to understand about this simple fact?

And there are many places in these threads where you claim COP INFINITY or COP exceeds infinity or COP>INFINITY, even using the capitalization.
You have degenerated to the point where you cannot even maintain self-consistency.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:42:49 PM
And as for this slew of misrepresentations.

Of course you can see that what she says in her reply to you is mostly garbage. Especially the part about "integration". The "integrations" that she has shown on the scope traces are incorrectly performed (not incorporating shunt value, not integrating the correct waveforms, not integrating over a suitable sampling interval, not accounting for probe skew, etc) and her values come from the data dumps to spreadsheet analysis, NOT live integration of proper waveforms to determine energy flows. Anyone who is familiar with the use of oscilloscopes for power measurements can confirm this, and the information that supports me is easily available from the scope manufacturers and others.
When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence.  We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration.  It's not difficult.  Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this.  The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples.  You can't.  You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope.  And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT?  HOW ODD?
The "power dissipation" claims she makes are also false. There is indeed more than one way to measure power dissipated, she does not use "standard protocols" at all, and so on. But of course you know this too.
We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests.  Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.
Her ignorance regarding the use of the Clarke-Hess sampling integrating power meter -- an "industry standard" instrument being used exactly as designed -- is a perfect example. Instead of focusing on a real limitation (the manufacturer's cited bandwidth of accuracy) she gets muddled about how it's connected in the circuit...even though it is connected exactly as an oscilloscope (with its own CVR) is connected. In other words, she again betrays her monumental wilful ignorance of proper standard power testing protocols, while at the same time proclaiming that she knows more than anyone else about it.
I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations.  I've referenced it here.
I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this..
I can easily accept that the readings of the CH may be off by a few percent due to the bandwidth accuracy limitation. However, it is being used correctly and it's monitoring the same circuit "input" point as the NERDs monitor, and in addition it also monitors something they did not: the power _delivered_ to the load. Stated another way, it is monitoring the power drawn by the load, or yet another way.... the power that must be dissipated in the load. The CH's accuracy in this regard has been rigorously tested USING A CALORIMETER-- a real one -- and the CH's readings of power dissipation by the load agree with calorimetric measurements. Call the bandwidth into question: OK, that is a real issue, an empirical one, and can be addressed by calibration against standards. Call the hookups and the basic methodology and basic accuracy into question -- that's just ignorant whining and is without merit.
Rigorous calibrations?  Really?  And then it's out by a small percentage?  PLEASE?  And let me re-iterate TK.  Here....
I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this..

It's all SPIN.  Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim.  And even now you have NOT addressed our claim.  Only something that you infer may be related to our claim.  LOL.  And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 03:48:48 PM
Now TK - I've taken the trouble to plow through the last two pages answering your questions.  Have the courtesy to answer mine.  Here it is again.

Hello TK,

Nice to see you around.  I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to address this post.  Then I'll move on to the other three video references.  Because I KNOW how badly you want to keep your thread topical.

Rosie Pose

Your first video referenced 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevE0FqoRKA)
Tek DPO meets Tar Baby for a Play Date
.  Why did you not use that DPO's DISPLAY facility to show the voltage values across the CSR?
.  It's really easily managed.  Yet you didn't see some need for this?
.  Or is that display there?  In the right hand corner at the top?
.  Where the value moves from negative to positive in line with the variations to the offset?
.  But for some reason you kept this out of focus?
.  ALWAYS
.  And WHY did you not use that DPO's MATH FUNCTION to show the product of the battery and shunt values?
.  When this would have got to the heart of the matter
.  so easily?
.  And that trick with the ground?
.  And all that INSINUATION?
.  Are you forgetting those wonderful grounding features of that Tek DPO 4034?
.  Therefore the circuit is only finally open
.  Or the the battery is only entirely disconnected
.  When you ALSO disconnect that wonderful little machine?
.  Shouldn't you have explained this?
.  Instead of implying that there were 'grounding' issues?
.  I'd have thought?
 
If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were relying on these omissions to try and 'imply', 'infer' or 'allege' a 'debunk'?  Surely not?  I'm sure you'd never be guilty of insulting our readers' intelligence with such OBVIOUS tactics.  :o It is hardly likely that you'd go to such inordinate lengths to try and hoodwink anyone at all - that our claim has no merit.  It's not your style.  I see that now.

Regards TK
Rosie Pose

By the way (BTW) - I was MOST intrigued with that background setting where you accessed that machine.  Is that a warehouse?  Full of equipment?  Did you officially register your loan of it?  For that little video of yours?  I'd give my eye teeth to know who the owner is.   

ADDED[/glow
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: fuzzytomcat on April 18, 2012, 07:25:51 PM
Then use a separate battery.  And monitor it's voltage to determine the output.  That's simple.
Our impedance was determined by measurements made by 'EXPERTS' on excellent and calibrated machines from well respected laboratories.  And whether their inductance values are greater or less - will not make an ounce of difference to the negative value of the current flow determined from the voltage across those shunts.  And it is that negative current flow that predominates each cycle that is of interest and is the entire substance of the claim.
We do NOT claim COP> INFINITY.  We MEASURE COP Infinity.  That's NOT the same thing.  We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source.  Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY.  What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source.  THEN - there would be no further EVIDENCE of COP Infinity. But then we do not know how to measure the energy.  Any more.  Because those new protocols need to be forged by EXPERTS TK.  Not by you.  As it is you can't even get your head around this distinction.  And to this end we have written that paper.
IF there is an alternate supply of energy that has, heretofore, NOT been factored into power analysis - then the EVIDENCE would be that we would have exceeded unity.  The prize is offered for over unity.  Therefore we would most certainly qualify for any over unity prize.  Whether or not we demand that prize is immaterial.  It's our qualification for that prize that's at issue.  Because when the 'new energy source' is accepted - then too the there will be no further resistance to the possibility.  It will become widely accepted and widely applied.  And THAT's our real prize.  Nothing else.

/...

continued/...Nor will I.  Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable.  And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you.  You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members.  I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'.  And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim.  Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.
You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors.  I DENY THIS.  You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim.  It is IRRELEVANT to our claim.  What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim.  In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim.  Let me remind you.  Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  That is the point of our claim.  Again.  Has this sunk in yet? 
IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory.  And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim.  Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT.  You have only ATTEMPTED THIS.  And failed. 
 
/...

continued/...WHAT measurements?  WHAT analysis?  Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis.  And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.
Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests.  I have been bitten.  I know how you operate.  Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim. 
So you keep telling us.  The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity.  I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS.  Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk.  Unfortunately.
IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance.  And the impedance relates to the applied frequency.  If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt.  And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply.  Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim.  Do you even read my answers? 
To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame.  One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy.  Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.

continued/...You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing.  We keep asking for evidence of this.  You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence.  Where?  In those videos? 
My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim.  When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests.  Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void.  YOU have made this my full time concern.  Not me.
While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim.  This requirement is ABSURD  and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM.  How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim?  Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient?  Without that thesis - there IS no claim.  The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS.  NOTHING ELSE.
I've argued this AT LENGTH.  Just go back and CHECK your facts.  This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.

Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose

And as for this slew of misrepresentations.
When I see you write this - then I also know how FRANTIC you are to deny our evidence.  We are all of us perfectly able to do this integration.  It's not difficult.  Yet you seem to think that it requires exceptional skills and that none of us know how to do this.  The real joke is that you HAVE NEVER performed an integrated analysis on ANY of your samples.  You can't.  You don't have a storage facility in that oscilloscope.  And the only time that you managed to access one ... YOU DIDN'T USE IT?  HOW ODD?We most certainly HAVE done the appropriate power dissipation tests.  Refer to our 1st part of that 2 part paper.I most certainly AM WELL AWARE of the Clarke-Hess bandwidth limitations.  I've referenced it here.Rigorous calibrations?  Really?  And then it's out by a small percentage?  PLEASE?  And let me re-iterate TK.  Here....
It's all SPIN.  Nothing but spin in a rather frantic effort to deny our claim.  And even now you have NOT addressed our claim.  Only something that you infer may be related to our claim.  LOL.  And by LOL MileHigh, I mean 'Dear God'.

Rosie Pose

Look everyone on the content of all nonsense postings above that wasn't even directed towards Rosemary and are you also tired of getting a "NOTIFICATION" with each posting after posting on the same subject matter from Rosemary whom cannot put everything in one post.

This trash from Rosemary has been posted over and over again in the "LOCKED DOWN" thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/  with a couple things in common. Rosemary has only learned how to falsify documentation a YouTube video and cherry pick information to justify her THESIS.

Where are all the so called EXPERTS of Rosemary's or the authors of her falsified papers and YouTube video.

Rosemary the SUPER TROLL is nothing but another fraud like "MyLow" http://pesn.com/2009/05/19/9501542_Fish-line_discovered_in_Mylow-magnet-motor/  ..... plain and simple   :o

If "BANNING" her is not a option for some odd unknown reason, Rosemary should have all her postings "moderated" to weed out her lies and force her to some how stay on topic.


FTC
 ???
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 18, 2012, 09:32:16 PM
I'm tired of this nonsense. Now she's comparing me to a criminal sociopath-- when HER endless series of lies and distortions leaves an indelible trail of slime behind her.

Rosemary has no right whatsoever to ask me any questions about what I'm doing with Tar Baby at all... since she denies it's a replication and I have also explicitly stated that it's not a replication... it's a duplication. Rosemary, on the other hand, has a clear OBLIGATION to address any and all issues about her work that might be raised, however and whenever and however frequently and by whom they might be raised... because it is SHE who is making the extraordinary claim on insufficient evidence.

She particularly has no right whatsoever to demand measurements from me that she has not performed or published herself, nor does she have any right whatsoever to dictate or question my scheduling of tests.

Neither does she have the knowledge or the right to criticise my video demonstrations, as each and every one of them is designed to address and illustrate one or two particular points that are clearly articulated and do not contain claims having to do with the Ainslie circuit ... they only _relate_ to it.

She most particularly does not have the right to fill pages of thread with irrelevant rants and continued lies and distortions.

Therefore...until further notice...

Further discussion of Tar Baby testing, NERD claims and discrepancies, and so on can continue.... on my YouTube channel, in the comment sections of the associated video demonstrations. If there's anything that doesn't fit into a comment under a video, you can PM me on YT.

In this thread... I will continue to say one thing: Ainslie will never show a definitive test of her claims. PROVE ME WRONG.

ETA: I am fairly certain that there are more people reading this website that would love to see ME fail and fall on my face in the dirt.... more people, in other words, who are against me in some way than are supporters of my viewpoint. There are probably more people that want Ainslie to be successful than want me to be. All right then... GET CRACKING, you lot. PROVE ME WRONG with your own demonstrations and tests. JUST DO IT, there will be plenty of people watching and egging you on. PROVE ME WRONG about what I assert with regard to TarBaby, instrumentation, oscilloscopes, power meters, Ainslie and her circuit, or the nature of gamma rays or the fire on the surface of the sun. PROVE ME WRONG.

Or stfu.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: powercat on April 18, 2012, 09:59:37 PM
TK,
she is incapable of proving you're wrong and she has no supporters anymore that's why she keeps barking at you, on and on and on, the only power she has is Over Lunacy
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 18, 2012, 10:40:14 PM
I'm tired of this nonsense. Now she's comparing me to a criminal sociopath-- when HER endless series of lies and distortions leaves an indelible trail of slime behind her.  Rosemary has no right whatsoever to ask me any questions about what I'm doing with Tar Baby at all... since she denies it's a replication and I have also explicitly stated that it's not a replication... it's a duplication. Rosemary, on the other hand, has a clear OBLIGATION to address any and all issues about her work that might be raised, however and whenever and however frequently and by whom they might be raised... because it is SHE who is making the extraordinary claim on insufficient evidence.

She particularly has no right whatsoever to demand measurements from me that she has not performed or published herself, nor does she have any right whatsoever to dictate or question my scheduling of tests. Neither does she have the knowledge or the right to criticise my video demonstrations, as each and every one of them is designed to address and illustrate one or two particular points that are clearly articulated and do not contain claims having to do with the Ainslie circuit ... they only _relate_ to it.

She most particularly does not have the right to fill pages of thread with irrelevant rants and continued lies and distortions. Therefore...until further notice... Further discussion of Tar Baby testing, NERD claims and discrepancies, and so on can continue.... on my YouTube channel, in the comment sections of the associated video demonstrations. If there's anything that doesn't fit into a comment under a video, you can PM me on YT.

In this thread... I will continue to say one thing: Ainslie will never show a definitive test of her claims. PROVE ME WRONG.

ETA: I am fairly certain that there are more people reading this website that would love to see ME fail and fall on my face in the dirt.... more people, in other words, who are against me in some way than are supporters of my viewpoint. There are probably more people that want Ainslie to be successful than want me to be. All right then... GET CRACKING, you lot. PROVE ME WRONG with your own demonstrations and tests. JUST DO IT, there will be plenty of people watching and egging you on. PROVE ME WRONG about what I assert with regard to TarBaby, instrumentation, oscilloscopes, power meters, Ainslie and her circuit, or the nature of gamma rays or the fire on the surface of the sun. PROVE ME WRONG.

Or stfu.

Are you seriously proposing that I do not defend our work and my good name against an attack from you?  Are you proposing that you are entitled to denigrate our work and our claim and my name - unchallenged?  I'm not sure that you could EVER justify that TinselKoala - not EVER.  And certainly not when you resort to slanderous comments and less than satisfactory scientific arguments.  These are the options.  You take my posts that are required for defense or your stop posting at a level that requires that defense.

Of course my challenges are unacceptable to you.  They contradict your allegations with scientific argument.  Repeatedly. 

Rosie Pose

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
Again you lie, plain and simple.

Not once, not ONE SINGLE TIME, have you been able to refute me with a demonstration, a checkable reference, or actual data. NEVER NOT A SINGLE TIME.

Yet I have refuted you over and over and over. You have been wrong about many things you've said, and I and others have proved it.

And your "papers" have nothing to do with science at all. You have no idea what the scientific method consists of. You have never tried to RULE OUT your "hypothesis", you have only tried to prove it. And failed miserably, by the way.

How long did it take you finally to admit that your 25.6 million Joules calculation was bogus? Do you still maintain that One Joule = One Watt Per Second? When will you retract your conclusion that was based on the incorrect calculation?

When will you admit that you lied about the circuit diagram, several times? When will you admit to the many lies in the video demonstration?

When will you admit that NOBODY is coming to your aid in support?

When will you admit that you, right now, are LYING about "not claiming overunity or COP>infinity"?

WHEN WILL YOU DO YOUR TEST? Never, that's when.

WHEN WILL YOU STOP LYING? Never, that's when.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 02:06:33 AM
Wow, give me a mosh pit or give me a padded room!

Rosemary:

Quote
We argue - if you took the trouble to read our paper - that there's a second energy supply source.  Which means that well established measurement protocols DO NOT APPLY.  What's needed is acknowledgement of an alternate energy supply source.

There is no "second energy supply source."  You are just an amateur little old lady with fantasies of zipons that can't punch her way out of a wet paper electronics bag.

Change your batteries for much smaller fresh and new batteries and do some load tests and finally kill this and put this nonsensical obsession to bed.  This whole time you have never done any proper battery load testing and you have been tricked by an improperly done DSO measurement.  You have also been tricked by the fact that you have been using very large batteries that you never load tested.  Even the most expensive DSO in the world is only as good as the person using it.

Quote
  Me:  You never actually tried to use alternative methods of making power measurements to confirm or deny that highly suspicious measurement.

You:  There is only one way to measure power delivered and power dissipated.  Well established measurement protocols.  They can't be improved on.

Bullshit, your comment is garbage and you cling to it for dear life.   You try to awkwardly deny the whole scientific method when you say, "They can't be improved on."  Bullshit again, you and your whole team have been repeatedly exposed as borderline clueless rank amateurs.

There are only two possible ways I can see this ending for you:

1.  You do a second round of tests and to your shock you confirm that the batteries are discharging.  Shades of the LEDs of DOOM.  Then you fade into obscurity.

2.  You do a second round of tests and no matter what you insist that you have "discovered a second energy supply source."  Then you fade into obscurity.

Trust me, a woman that can't even understand the fact that power is dissipated in a resistor as long as there is current flow is never ever going to see one of her ridiculous papers published.  Not in a million years.

There is no happy ending for you Rosemary because this is all nonsense.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 02:30:03 AM
Things she's said that aren't true: (I found so many in just this thread alone that I got tired of it before I was even halfway through.) Items in RED are direct cut-pastes from her posts.. in other words, her own words.

1. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.

No...they aren't. They seem to be 50 or perhaps even 60 amp-hours each.

2. Joules = 1 watt per second.

Er.... no. One Watt is one Joule per second. One Joule is one WattSecond. Very different and not mathematically equivalent at all.

3. So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Er... do the math. This calculation is completely wrong in at least three different ways.

4. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

A nominal "12 volt" battery of the type used by Ainslie will indicate well over 13 volts when fully charged, and will not drop below 12 volts until nearly completely DISCHARGED. So the fact that the batteries are still OVER 12 volts is actually evidence that they are substantially DISCHARGED... or they would be over 13 volts each, not 12.

5. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

Er... only if you use the bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure. Using the correct figure the battery could have performed 10 such tests without depleting its charge. Yet RA has never retracted this claim. Therefore... since she knows the 25.6 megaJoule figure is wrong.... it is a continuing and outrageous lie.



6. Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

Read the explanation in Wiki again. One Watt is not One Joule and one Joule is not one Watt per second, and the terms are NOT interchangeable, and the WIKI explains it correctly and RA once again is distorting the reference and lying about her claim.

7. Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries.

But previously she said, "That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

and

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit." These statements cannot all be true... so one or more of them is a lie.

8. Unless you've removed the video from the link that I posted - or unless you've changed that video - YOU MOST CERTAINLY have been monitoring the load resistor.  Or so you said in that video.   And if you were monitoring the shunt - THEN WHY WERE YOU RELATING IT TO THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE TRANSISTOR?  And WHY did you identify it as the load?  And WHY have you EVER taken voltages across the load?

The real joke is this.  You complained that we don't take voltages across the load.  Explain this.  IF YOU DARE.


I have never once taken the voltage "across the load resistor". In fact without isolated probes or a differential voltage probe, you cannot monitor voltage across the load, because it is "high-side switched" and doesn't connect directly to the negative common ground point. I never said in the video any such thing... what I ALWAYS say is that I am monitoring the common mosfet drains, on the transistor side of the load. And neither have I ever "complained" any such thing. I have said that they are not typically showing the mosfet common drain voltage... a very different thing altogether.


9. TK has not obliged us with ANY measurements. 

This is false. I have posted many videos containing precise measurements of many quantities.

10. This is not clear.  Where on the circuit have you put the CH2330?  In the NERD circuit the load is clearly indicated in a schematic.  You have given us a multiple and optional reference with no clarity at all.  Have you put the CH2330 on either side of the battery?  At its positive terminal and then its negative terminal?  Or have you put the CH2330 on the near and then far side of the load in series with the positive terminal?  If the former - then the readings should be co-incident.  If the latter then the readings bear no relevance to the 'input' and 'output' as you claim.  And if you are drawing a distinction between the input and the output then exactly what are you distinguishing?  To me that amperage value looks like the 'sum' of both the input and the output.  In which case?   On our NERD circuit, the sum of our voltages gives us a current flow that shows considerably more back to the battery than delivered by the battery.  Which is a negative voltage value.  If your Ch2330 is not showing a negative current flow resulting from that negative voltage sum then you have not replicated our values. Nor have you replicated our waveform across the batteries. In which case I would expect your batteries would discharge.  And our range of battery oscillation is considerably greater than that shown on your circuit.  Which gives our circuit considerably more advantage over both cycles of each oscillation.  I suspect that your lack of voltage may be because your load is not sufficiently inductive.  And there is no consistency between each oscillation period - the one varying from the other.  Therefore is there no consistency in the claimed results.  That's the pivotal requirement related to any claimed measurement.   

This entire post is full of lies, distortions and inaccuracies. I have shown very clearly, before this post, where and how the CH is used in the circuit. I have indeed replicated the waveform on the batteries. And that part about my load "not sufficiently inductive" is a real howler... since my load is 74 microHenry and hers is CLAIMED to be only a couple of microHenry. And there certainly is consistency in my results. I can turn the system on and make ANY of the illustrated waveforms immediately...because I understand the circuit.


11. The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude. And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.

Two at once. Clearly my battery oscillations DO have the "same amplitude", as demonstrated in several videos,  and clearly... my load resistor is 74 microHenry, which is MORE INDUCTIVE than the (unbelievable) 2.23 microHenry they claim to have used.

12.  Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery.  This results in a negative wattage.  We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.
If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit.  It's that simple.

False.
The unpublished, many times rejected draft document that RA calls a "paper" has many errors in it. The data and measurements are full of errors. RA does not show any evidence of what she claims, she shows errors in data collection, analysis and interpretation. There is no experimental support for her claims in the "papers". And I am not required to repeat her errors in order to replicate her circuit.


13. We do not claim over unity.

This is clearly false, as you have claimed overunity many times. In English, claiming that the batteries do not discharge while doing useful work is CLAIMING OVERUNITY. Applying for an Overunity Prize on an Overunity website... is claiming OVERUNITY.

That gets us up to about page 23 of this thread. There are more lies and false statements from RA yet to come.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some quotes from the demo video, said by the presenter with RA standing behind him:
Quotes from the video, the unnamed presenter speaking, words in red:

1) 0:20- "The circuit diagram before you is a replication of what exists on the experimental setup"

This is false.

2) 0:30: "What we have is 5 mosfets mounted in parallel" 

This is false.

3) 1:59: "C represents the input to the gates of the mosfet" as he gestures to the board.

Another false statement. The function generator is seen to be connected to point F by the red alligator clip.

4) 2:05:  "F WOULD BE THE DRAIN, THE COMMON DRAIN..."

Rosemary has claimed that the common drain voltage isn't shown in this video, and that the GREEN trace does not represent the mosfet common drain. But it is, and it does.

5) 3:09  (stuttering a bit and mumbling) "we can see the battery voltage mumble mumble roughly sixty two volts, BEARING IN MIND we have 5 twelve volt batteries so theoretically we should have'bout sixty volts but thats.... mumble."

That's another lie, is what he's trying to say.

Of course we know that a fully charged 12 volt battery of this type should measure well over 13 volts so the stack of five should be at about 65 volts if it were fully charged. The fact that the meter indicates 62 volts isn't as much of a mystery to me as it evidently is to the presenter-- as it actually indicates that the batteries are substantially DISCHARGED.. or they would have been over 65 volts.

6) 3:53:  "AND THE GREEN of course the actual drain, drainback (mumbles) .. the the drain voltage."

Again... Ainslie has berated and castigated me several times for saying that the Green trace in this video is the common mosfet drain voltage.

Ainslie makes no corrections to the presenter's narration... and thus is responsible for the lies in the video demo.


QED: she lies and distorts my work, my data, her own data, external references, the things other people say and do... all of it. None of what she says can be trusted in any context. None of it.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 19, 2012, 07:34:05 AM
Guys, 

I suppose I need to comment on this post from MileHigh as well.  I'll try and keep it brief as possible.  It's only topical in as much as it's not scientific.  Science has never been the issue on this thread.
Wow, give me a mosh pit or give me a padded room!
Not sure that this is relevant.  Presumably you're commenting on your mental stability?
There is no "second energy supply source."  You are just an amateur little old lady with fantasies of zipons that can't punch her way out of a wet paper electronics bag.
Not sure that this is accurate.  I'm not little.  I'm 5ft 9" and then some. I have no 'fantasies' related to zipons. I have a proposal that requires the existence of these particles.  And I'm managing to punch some serious holes in TK's arguments.  The only accurate statement here is that I'm old and that I'm an amateur.  I keep really good company in both categories.
Change your batteries for much smaller fresh and new batteries and do some load tests and finally kill this and put this nonsensical obsession to bed.  This whole time you have never done any proper battery load testing and you have been tricked by an improperly done DSO measurement.  You have also been tricked by the fact that you have been using very large batteries that you never load tested.  Even the most expensive DSO in the world is only as good as the person using it.
We certainly used batteries with exceptional capacity.  And you're right.  We have not tested these to their duration.  BUT.  There is no way that you, nor TK nor anyone at all can misrepresent the results from a good oscilloscope.  Just can't be done.
Bullshit, your comment is garbage and you cling to it for dear life.   You try to awkwardly deny the whole scientific method when you say, "They can't be improved on."  Bullshit again, you and your whole team have been repeatedly exposed as borderline clueless rank amateurs.
This comment is slanderous, unqualified and unprofessional.  Which also means that it is very much 'on topic' with this thread.
There are only two possible ways I can see this ending for you:

1.  You do a second round of tests and to your shock you confirm that the batteries are discharging.  Shades of the LEDs of DOOM.  Then you fade into obscurity.
2.  You do a second round of tests and no matter what you insist that you have "discovered a second energy supply source."  Then you fade into obscurity.
This indicates that the thread topic now also includes the art of prophesy.  Which makes it surprisingly appropriate - on a great many levels.
Trust me, a woman that can't even understand the fact that power is dissipated in a resistor as long as there is current flow is never ever going to see one of her ridiculous papers published.  Not in a million years.
I agree.  Fortunately I am not such a woman.
There is no happy ending for you Rosemary because this is all nonsense.
I'm not looking for happy endings MileHigh.  I'm looking for happy beginnings.  And that's where our experimental evidence points.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 02:52:37 PM
Hi Rosemary,
TK is right.

You should have done the scope tests that he is now doing.


Until you are not able to show conclusive new data and battery charge status tests the Ainsley circuit is
in my view busted not to be generating additional energy.


 Maybe TK can work out a  simple circuit diagramm with an additional 9 Volts helper
 battery and a pot to produce a negative bias voltage, so the circuit will oscillate all the time.

Then this can be used instead of the function generator !
 
 Maybe this additional battery plus pot needs a sharp switchon voltage graident to get the oscillations to work,
 but this should be no problem with an additional switch...
 
 
 So Rosemary now it is your turn  to  replicate TinselKoala´s  work and show that he is wrong.

And yes, he is right, 12 Volts lead acid batteries just sitting at just 12 Volts are almost discharged.
Fully charged they are about 13.8 Volts.

Just working on a thesis paper is not enough, if the technology behind it is only based on measurement errors...

Regards, Stefan.

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Here is some more work on driving the Tar Baby with an internal timer rather than an external function generator.

Fig.1:  The Tar Baby Revision C schematic reproduced again, showing the working, floating, externally powered 555 timer circuit that produces a strict negative-going gate drive pulse with oscillations, which I have been using for several days now.
ETA: The diagram shows 3 x 12 v main batteries, but I've been using 4, and of course with proper transistor heatsinking up to 6 batteries (72 volts nominal) can be used.

Fig 2: A 555 - based voltage inverter circuit that will allow the Fig.1 timer circuit to operate NON-floating and powered by the most negative battery in the main circuit's supply, with no external battery needed. This works but makes a bit of noise on the oscillations.... perhaps a filter stage to keep the oscillations from affecting the inverter itself  may be needed.

Fig 3: The Voltage Inverter installed on TarBaby and powering the 555 timer board for testing. Input power at the top, power connections to the timer board can be seen clearly. Red is positive, black is negative.
(I didn't have any 470 microFarad caps so I used 2 ea. 220 microFarad 35 volt caps in parallel for each of the 470s. Obviously component values aren't too critical.)


HOWEVER: since the TarBaby (and NERD) need that negative bias current on the Q2 source pins in order to make the oscillations..... neither Rev C alone nor the Rev C + Inverter will work in the positive pulse mode. That is... they work fine to turn mosfets on in that mode, but since they can't also provide the negative bias current at the same time... no oscillations are made.

I explain this need for negative bias current in the latest video, and show why a simple 555 circuit isn't going to work for both modes without some means for providing that negative bias current.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkNDYaFVc7g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkNDYaFVc7g)

(I'm posting this here _provisionally_ .... if the noise in the thread continues, then I will carry on further discussion on the YT comments and PMs and leave this thread for the fishes.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 03:34:50 PM
Hi TK,

why is a simple 9 Volts battery with a pot polarized inverted to the main batteries not enough to
put up the needed negative bias voltage ? If youi make the pot e.g. 1 Kohm you can
also drive a few milliamps as a negative bias current when needed...?

Then you would not need any floating circuit or any inverter to produce -12 Volts.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 04:28:32 PM
TK,

What is the current draw on your 555 circuit while the TB is oscillating?

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 04:30:57 PM
Hi TK,

why is a simple 9 Volts battery with a pot polarized inverted to the main batteries not enough to
put up the needed negative bias voltage ? If youi make the pot e.g. 1 Kohm you can
also drive a few milliamps as a negative bias current when needed...?

Then you would not need any floating circuit or any inverter to produce -12 Volts.

Regards, Stefan.

The negative bias current needed to make the oscillations can be as high as 200 mA or even higher. An external 9v battery will run down well before the main batteries begin to deplete, unless it's a big stack of 9 volt batteries.

Essentially though, that is what the circuit in Rev C does. It's a normal 555 timer, but with its output leads simply flipped: the Pin 3 output goes to the "negative" FG input to the main circuit, and the 555 ground goes to the _Positive_ FG input. This is why its supply must be floated (external, not grounded to the main circuit.) This arrangement produces a pulse that is "more negative" than the main circuit's ground -- a 555 positive pulse, going into where the FG's "negative" lead usually connects to the main circuit.

The negative bias current must be "more negative" than the most negative pole of the main battery. That's why a simple pot or 555 timer circuit powered directly by the most negative 12 volt battery in the main stack won't work. This is where the FG is inserting its current into the system, and this is where some means of getting "more negative" than the main battery's negative terminal is needed.

Please see my video explaining function generator polarity and current flow, as well as the most recent video linked in the post above. When the FG is set to make a symmetrical positive and negative pulse, and the "negative" output lead of the FG is connected to circuit ground (on either side of the shunt), then when the FG's pulse goes negative, the FG's "positive" output lead will actually be "more negative" than the circuit ground. That is, the FG's "negative" output lead is now positive with respect to the FG's "positive" output lead.  Confusing, isn't it. That's why I recommend watching the two videos.
In the latest video the amplitude and offset values of the FG are used to illustrate that, with the positive going drive pulse, there must also be a negative offset (not usually even visible on the scope trace) in order to make the circuit oscillate. 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 04:39:23 PM
TK,

What is the current draw on your 555 circuit while the TB is oscillating?

PW

200 mA is not unusual, but in the "quiescent" mode with no or minimum oscillations it's a few tens of mA. The 555 gets hot, depending on operating mode, hence the heatsink.

I'm still not completely sure about this; there is massive potential for groundloops in this circuit and test arrangement.
Yesterday my _BNC probe connectors_ at the scope were heating up at one point... I realized the whole  system was actually getting its power from one probe's ground lead at the neg batt terminal, up to the scope, thru the connectors, to the other probe's ground lead, and down into the circuit, because I had forgotten to hook up the main power negative battery lead to the ammeter at the right place.

I'll be doing more measurements on this later on, but I've got to do some "real work" today so I won't get to it before late tonight.

ETA: OK, here's a quick measurement. The above values were without the Voltage Inverter feeding the clock. So by increasing the voltage on the supply to the clock, I could get the oscillations to grow larger and the system could draw more current.

Now I've inserted the Voltage Inverter, and still using a regulated supply, I can take the input to the Inverter up to 15 volts (as high as I dare for chip protection) and I get about 55 mA draw indicated on a good moving-coil meter in series with the regulated supply. This only gives me about 90  mA indicated on the main inline DMM ammeter at the main battery, and appears to produce only a little load heating. So the Inverter isn't allowing the required current to flow through the clock, apparently. I still get nice oscillations (in the negative gate pulse mode) but not of sufficient amplitude to allow much load heating, apparently. I've not yet taken current readings when the Inverter is powered by the most negative main battery. That will have to wait, I've got to get real here for a while.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 05:57:40 PM
Hey TK:

I only skimmed the recent postings because I am at work.  I saw your little capacitor-diode trick to get a negative output pulse.  I have to assume it does induce negative oscillation mode but it's a kludge.

I can suggest two possible 'clean' solutions for everyone to consider.  If you have a five battery set, then just put a sixth battery in series with the set to give you the -12 volts (or -6 volts if you want).  So you can run your 555 on ground and -12 (or -6) volts.  The only load on the sixth battery is to power the timer and support the current drain from the NERD circuit in negative oscillation mode.

The other solution is to purchase a real DC-to-DC converter with +12 volts in and -5 volts out.  As long as the DC-to-DC converter can power the 555 and support the current drain from the NERD circuit then you are fine.  Assuming a five battery set, then the "bottom" battery in the voltage stack would have an extra load on it, the DC-to-DC converter.

But then of course if the bottom battery drains then Rosemary has a "Get out of Jail Free" card that she can play about the double-load on the bottom battery.

Personally I would go with adding the extra battery and then just "ignore" that battery when you do the testing.  Then run the load testing with a light bulb and prove that the batteries actually discharge and then it's game over for the NERDs.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 06:18:12 PM
MH,

I do not believe it is acceptable to ignore the current draw from whatever is used to bias on Q2.

Regardless of whether an FG or a 555 circuit, etc is used, something must provide the current necessary to bias Q2 on and if ignored, represents an error term in the final power calculations.

A pair of center-tapped batteries or an isolated DC to DC converter could be used to power the 555, but the current necessary to bias Q2 on has to come from somewhere.

Even with an efficient isolated DC to DC converter operating off the main battery string, the converter will have to draw both its quiescent current and the Q2 bias current from the batteries.  Without that current, Q2 cannot be biased on and the circuit will not oscillate. 

Personally, I would consider using an FG as OK, if its power contribution was both measured and calculated into the final power calculations.

PW   
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 06:18:51 PM
TK:

A small addendum.  PW caught me on this one before.

Since the 555 is emulating the function generator, it also has to support the current sinking requirement of the function generator.  The 555 output stage might not be able to do that all by itself.   So you might need to a simple transistor arrangement to do that.

A good old NPN driven by the 555 timer with a 50-ohm resistor at the collector would emulate the function generator current sink.   In this case "high" from the 555 output would become "low" on the output.  We wouldn't want any Joit-inspired mass confusion again.  But I am only addressing one of the output polarities.

Here is where I will defer to you guys, the "EXPERTS," for the best transistor configuration to act as a buffer with a 50-ohm output impedance between the 555 output and the NERD circuit.  All that is getting a bit foggy for me!

Sadly in a way, the glory days of the discrete transistor are long gone.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 19, 2012, 06:25:12 PM
PW:

Quote
Personally, I would consider using an FG as OK, if its power contribution was both measured and calculated into the final power calculations.

Indeed, I agree with you.  And I was composing my last posting as you were composing your posting.  The first go round when I forgot about the current draw requirements to bias the Q2 array I felt dumb, like I was slipping.

Like anything as you get older, if you don't exercise the brain cells, then they start to atrophy.  When I first looked at the free energy forums, it had already been 15+ years since I worked as an engineer.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 07:24:07 PM
MH,

I do not believe it is acceptable to ignore the current draw from whatever is used to bias on Q2.

Regardless of whether an FG or a 555 circuit, etc is used, something must provide the current necessary to bias Q2 on and if ignored, represents an error term in the final power calculations.

This seems to be getting confusing. Q2 does not require any significant "bias" to turn it on. It's a MOSFET remember guys? What IS needed is a relatively low impedance AC path for the MOSFET SOURCE and GATE legs to ground.

The real DC bias and AC paths can be completely separated, as I have done with my design. This circuit is not that complex. You give the MOSFET a lot of stray inductance on its leads, a little forward DC bias, and off she goes.....oscillation.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 07:36:41 PM
This seems to be getting confusing. Q2 does not require any significant "bias" to turn it on. It's a MOSFET remember guys? What IS needed is a relatively low impedance AC path for the MOSFET SOURCE and GATE legs to ground.

The real DC bias and AC paths can be completely separated, as I have done with my design. This circuit is not that complex. You give the MOSFET a lot of stray inductance on its leads, a little forward DC bias, and off she goes.....oscillation.

No, perhaps we aren't being clear. We are not talking about turning Q2 on. We are talking about supplying a negative potential to the Q2 _source_ pins, with sufficient oomph to put 200 mA in there, to induce and maintain the oscillations.

As Stefan has inquired and as I have just confirmed with live circuitry, this can be done with a 9V battery and a pot, no switching just continuous oscillations. This has to be "negative" though: the positive from the pot/battery has to go to where the "negative" FG lead is connected to the NERD circuit: the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2. And the negative from the pot/battery goes to where the "positive" FG lead connects to the NERD circuit: the gates of Q2 and the source of Q1. Thus, no mosfet sees a positive gate potential at all, but the source bias causes the oscillations and allows some current through the oscillating mosfets... and the source bias _source_ is contributing significant power to the system, at anywhere from 60 to 200 plus mA.

I've got to hit the road, so I won't be able to post again until later this evening. Thanks for your comments, and there is a new video up with a bit of a puzzler that I could use some help with.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 07:58:27 PM
This seems to be getting confusing. Q2 does not require any significant "bias" to turn it on. It's a MOSFET remember guys? What IS needed is a relatively low impedance AC path for the MOSFET SOURCE and GATE legs to ground.

The real DC bias and AC paths can be completely separated, as I have done with my design. This circuit is not that complex. You give the MOSFET a lot of stray inductance on its leads, a little forward DC bias, and off she goes.....oscillation.

.99,

Are you sure about this?  In the common gate configuration, I agree there will be very little gate current once biased on (as with all MOSFETS), but by holding the gate at ground and having to supply a negative voltage to the source, whatever is used to bias on Q2 must be able to provide the bias voltage "for" Q2 at the bias current "of" Q2.

I too would consider placing the gate of Q2 above ground as you do in your burst osc schematic, as switching the gate voltage would be a very low current point to do the switchng (and eliminates the need for a negative voltage source).  Try placing your gate at ground in your sim circuit and providing -10V to the source thru 50R.  What would the sim say regarding the current on the -10V?

If we are to adhere to RA's original circuit, and if the source is to be brought to say -10V relative to the gate via 50R, and if Q2 passes 150ma. at that applied voltage, then I would think that a constant supply of -10V at 150ma. would be required to keep Q2 biased on.

PW




Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 08:22:35 PM
.99,

I have suggested a few times that a 50R be placed in the source leg of Q2 and that the gate be biased at a positive voltage to keep Q2 operating (similar to your circuit).  A 1meg pot across the first Batt+ with the wiper tied to the gate circuit (AC decoupled) would allow the operating bias of Q2 to be set/varied.  This would only draw 12-14ua. from the first battery (depending on its voltage).  Alternately, the gate coud be tied to the first Batt+ directly through a series resistor/cap to ground (for decoupling) and only the decoupling cap and gate leakage current would be drawn from the first battery.  The value of the 50R at the source could be modified to set the Q2 operating (bias) current.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 08:27:51 PM
Hmmm... I think I'm understanding this a bit more now.

The negative potential on the Q2 source pins effectively increases the potential difference between the gate and the source, with the gate being more positive... even though it's held at "zero" volts by the gate drive pulsation baseline. When the negative potential on Q2 source becomes great enough-- 4 or so volts negative wrt the gate at "zero" volts.... the mosfets begin to conduct a little and the oscillations start. Once the oscs start they provide a rising and falling potential difference between the Q2 gates and sources.... in other words, feedback oscillations.

In other words, PW and .99 seem to be describing the same thing, from different sides of the coin, if I am understanding correctly.
 
Is the power from the negative bias source being mixed in with the main battery power being partially switched by the mosfets during the oscillations? How does this happen if it does?  Is it coupled capacitatively through the gate-drain capacitance?

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 08:34:25 PM
.99,

I have suggested a few times that a 50R be placed in the source leg of Q2 and that the gate be biased at a positive voltage to keep Q2 operating (similar to your circuit).  A 1meg pot across the first Batt+ with the wiper tied to the gate circuit (AC decoupled) would allow the operating bias of Q2 to be set/varied.  This would only draw 12-14ua. from the first battery (depending on its voltage).  Alternately, the gate coud be tied to the first Batt+ directly through a series resistor/cap to ground (for decoupling) and only the decoupling cap and gate leakage current would be drawn from the first battery.  The value of the 50R at the source could be modified to set the Q2 operating (bias) current.

PW

I agree, this would be a good way to make stable and adjustable oscillations, better than the simple battery-pot idea (which does work but is kind of twitchy). But if this is done, obviously the power contribution of the bias source is eliminated. Is it then a NERD circuit any more?  This is why I didn't pursue the optocoupler idea earlier. I think now I could get it to work, but again... the isolation defeats the functioning of the NERD circuit.
This is also my objection to MH's LEDs of Doom. The LED is a diode after all, rectifying what it sees ... and inserting it into the circuit, even bidirectionally, might interfere with the "normal" current paths and thus void the warranty.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 09:08:36 PM
Hmmm... I think I'm understanding this a bit more now.

The negative potential on the Q2 source pins effectively increases the potential difference between the gate and the source, with the gate being more positive... even though it's held at "zero" volts by the gate drive pulsation baseline. When the negative potential on Q2 source becomes great enough-- 4 or so volts negative wrt the gate at "zero" volts.... the mosfets begin to conduct a little and the oscillations start. Once the oscs start they provide a rising and falling potential difference between the Q2 gates and sources.... in other words, feedback oscillations.

In other words, PW and .99 seem to be describing the same thing, from different sides of the coin, if I am understanding correctly.
 
Is the power from the negative bias source being mixed in with the main battery power being partially switched by the mosfets during the oscillations? How does this happen if it does?  Is it coupled capacitatively through the gate-drain capacitance?

TK,

Hey, I thought you had "real work" to do today!

Your questions are good ones.  Regarding the bias source, that is why I asked what your 555 circuit's supply was drawing when it has Q2 oscillating.  If your Q2 bias is 150ma. for example, I would think your 555 supply will be showing a total current draw equal to the 150ma bias current plus 555 quiescent current.

For DC, the current path is through whatever is providing the turn on bias supply for Q2.  For AC, the path is through both the bias supply and the Ciss of the MOSFETs.  When the FG was used, its Rgen=50R was a lesser path for AC than the Ciss of the MOSFETs.  With your 555's 10R source, the 10R is probably close to an equal path for AC, as the 10R is close to the Ciss reactance at 1.5MHz.

PW




Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 09:33:29 PM
TK,

If you look at the first paper's schematic, it at first appears that the only path for AC at the source of Q2 is through the FG.  But, if you draw in the gate to source capacitance, Ciss, you will see that the Ciss is effectively across the FG terminals and therefore allows a portion of the AC current to bypass the FG.  The Ciss of a single IRFPG50 is somewhere around 2800pF.  Four Q2's in parallel make the total Ciss around 11,200pF, and at 1.5Mhz, this represents a fairly low impedance path around the FG's 50R.

I am still considering how the drain to gate capacitance, Coss, comes into play.  Coss will allow an amount of AC to be applied to the CSR, and hence thru the FG and Ciss, effectively be negative feedback.  Add some phase shift (inductance) and negative feedback can easily become positive feedback, i.e., an oscillator. 

The amount of negative feedback at AC that Coss provides is a bit complicated, as the inductance of the CSR, the DC resistance of the CSR, the reactance of Ciss, the Rgen, and any stray inductance/capacitance would all come into play in dividing the negative FB and setting the Q2 AC gain or alternately, and/or as well, providing the phase shift necessary to cause the oscillation.  That is how I see it anyway.

.99 could probably be more quantitative in this regard with his sim probing.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 09:34:03 PM
Just to clarify one point;

"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.

So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.

I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
.99 could probably be more quantitative in this regard with his sim probing.

PW

If you want to see something specific on any of the circuits, simply ask.  :)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 10:10:15 PM
Just to clarify one point;

"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.

So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.

I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.

.99,

I agree with the comments above, however, the gate is a very high impedance node for DC, while the source is a low impedance node for DC.

In your sim work, if you insert a -12V battery in series with 50R in the Q2 source leg (using the grounded gate configuration and connecting the battery/resistor where the FG is normally connected), wil not the -12V battery have to provide an amount of current equal to whatever DC current is flowing thru Q2?

Personally, I have no problem with the alternate bias method.  Tie the gate to the first Batt+ through some decoupling and insert a 50R at the source.  I would indeed be impressed if that circuit "ran forever".

PW


 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
In your sim work, if you insert a -12V battery in series with 50R in the Q2 source leg (using the grounded gate configuration and connecting the battery/resistor where the FG is normally connected), wil not the -12V battery have to provide an amount of current equal to whatever DC current is flowing thru Q2?

Yes, whatever is in the SOURCE will have to pass the Source current. That goes without saying. However, that current has nothing explicitly to do with biasing the MOSFET in a partially ON state. In this instance, the FG (if you will) is providing two functions; VGS bias, AND AC/DC path to ground.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 10:20:35 PM
Just to clarify one point;

"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.

So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.

I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.

.99,

To further clarify, yes, the bias voltage or Vbias is the voltage applied to the gate relative to the source, i.e., Vgs.  But, but the bias current, Ibias, is the quiescent DC operating current that Q2 passes when, in concert with its source resistance and Vds, Vbias is applied.     

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 10:28:32 PM
Yes, whatever is in the SOURCE will have to pass the Source current. That goes without saying. However, that current has nothing explicitly to do with biasing the MOSFET in a partially ON state. In this instance, the FG (if you will) is providing two functions; VGS bias, AND AC/DC path to ground.

.99,

I would rather say "two functions; Vgs bias, the only DC path to ground and a partial AC path to ground", the other AC path being Ciss.

Regarding the bias source in the Q2 source leg, if we connect a 15 volt battery in series with 50R between ground (CSR) and the source of Q2 (batt+ at CSR), the measured drop across the 50R will be around 10.5 to 10 volts (the 15volts minus Vgs).  That means there is around 200ma flowing as Ibias thru Q2, and as well through the battery.  If the battery is a 200ma/Hr battery, does this not mean the battery will last only 1 hour?

PW

(corrected batt- to batt+)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 19, 2012, 10:39:21 PM
TK,

Hey, I thought you had "real work" to do today!

Your questions are good ones.  Regarding the bias source, that is why I asked what your 555 circuit's supply was drawing when it has Q2 oscillating.  If your Q2 bias is 150ma. for example, I would think your 555 supply will be showing a total current draw equal to the 150ma bias current plus 555 quiescent current.

For DC, the current path is through whatever is providing the turn on bias supply for Q2.  For AC, the path is through both the bias supply and the Ciss of the MOSFETs.  When the FG was used, its Rgen=50R was a lesser path for AC than the Ciss of the MOSFETs.  With your 555's 10R source, the 10R is probably close to an equal path for AC, as the 10R is close to the Ciss reactance at 1.5MHz.

PW
Thanks... I think I get it..... maybe..... So the bias power is "mixed in " with the main power from the batteries and must be dissipated in the load and mosfets (I suspect in the mosfets mostly). Hence the load heating and current viewing resistors are giving an inaccurate picture of the power flows in the circuit.... is that right?
(I know this has been covered before; I just want to hammer it home somehow if it is correct.)

I'm running so late that there's no point in making the drive. So here I am, stuck in Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Anyway.... I tried the 50r/pot/cap/main battery thing and I can't get it to work.  And yes, I've confirmed that the pot is good and is adjusting the voltage properly, tried with three different valued pots.

This _does_ work just fine with the external battery (no decoupling cap), but using the running battery I can't get it to work. External 9v gives beautiful nearly perfect sinusoidal oscillations on the common drain when the 10 k (not 1 meg; I also tried 100 K, no luck) pot is set right, and the "voltage floor" still shows up: the negative voltage on the gate drive signal floors at about 4 volts negative indicated on the scope trace.

I think you really do need to provide a potential that is more negative than the negative battery terminal....

I just made another video... chaotic but the points come through I hope. It's uploading now.

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 19, 2012, 10:39:56 PM
Is the 200 mA really a DC current ?
What about the AC component flowing while the oscillations are happening ?

If we would use just a 9 Volts battery with a pot and put on the oscillations,
then we would pronbly only have an AC current, right ?
Or will we have an AC current superimposed on a DC 200 mA current ?

Maybe TK can measure this and show it on a new video ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 10:47:48 PM
Thanks... I think I get it..... maybe..... So the bias power is "mixed in " with the main power from the batteries and must be dissipated in the load and mosfets (I suspect in the mosfets mostly). Hence the load heating and current viewing resistors are giving an inaccurate picture of the power flows in the circuit.... is that right?
(I know this has been covered before; I just want to hammer it home somehow if it is correct.)

I'm running so late that there's no point in making the drive. So here I am, stuck in Mobile with the Memphis blues again.

Anyway.... I tried the 50r/pot/cap/main battery thing and I can't get it to work.  And yes, I've confirmed that the pot is good and is adjusting the voltage properly, tried with three different valued pots.

This _does_ work just fine with the external battery (no decoupling cap), but using the running battery I can't get it to work. External 9v gives beautiful nearly perfect sinusoidal oscillations on the common drain when the 10 k (not 1 meg; I also tried 100 K, no luck) pot is set right, and the "voltage floor" still shows up: the negative voltage on the gate drive signal floors at about 4 volts negative indicated on the scope trace.

I think you really do need to provide a potential that is more negative than the negative battery terminal....

I just made another video... chaotic but the points come through I hope. It's uploading now.

TK,

I would decouple the wiper of the pot, or just use a 10K resistor from the first Bat+ to a cap and tie the other end of the cap to real ground (not the CSR, althogh you might want to try both ground points).  Then, to the junction of the resistor and cap, connect another resistor, 1Meg or so, and connect the other end of that high value resistor to the MOSFET gate.  You may have to add a bit of wire length between the end of the 1Meg and the gate to add some inductance to get the osc.  Possibly you will have to add some inductance (wire) in series with the 50R at the source as well.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 10:59:54 PM
Is the 200 mA really a DC current ?
What about the AC component flowing while the oscillations are happening ?

If we would use just a 9 Volts battery with a pot and put on the oscillations,
then we would pronbly only have an AC current, right ?
Or will we have an AC current superimposed on a DC 200 mA current ?

Maybe TK can measure this and show it on a new video ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Stefan,

If a 9 volt battery was placed in the source leg of Q2 with a series resistor, let's say 50R, then the DC bias current would be around 100ma plus or minus 30-40ma or so.  When oscillating, there would be this DC bias current passing through the 50R and 9volt battery and a separate AC current.  My assertion is that the AC current would follow two paths, one being the through 9 volt battery and 50R in this instance, and the other AC path being the gate to source capacitance of the MOSFETs.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 19, 2012, 11:07:03 PM
I don't think we want 200mA of AC current flowing through our bias battery, that's why I isolated it.

With isolation, the battery supplies only a tiny DC current to slightly bias the MOSFET ON, and the AC path is provided capacitively, which bypasses the DC bias network.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 19, 2012, 11:24:40 PM
I don't think we want 200mA of AC current flowing through our bias battery, that's why I isolated it.

With isolation, the battery supplies only a tiny DC current to slightly bias the MOSFET ON, and the AC path is provided capacitively, which bypasses the DC bias network.

.99,

Yes, but in TK's set up using the 555, and in the NERD circuit using the FG, the 555 or FG must provide that 200ma of current at whatever negative voltage is used to keep Q2 biased on.  Only by by applying the bias voltage to the gate can a "tiny DC current" be needed from the bias source.

Also, I am only estimating the Q2 Ibias.  In the RA paper it was mentioned the FG was set to full negative offset in at least one test.  I am assuming a maximum of -14.5 from the FG open circuit and an Rgen=50R.  The voltage at the source of Q2 will always be Vgs from the gate, which is ground in this case.  At -14.5V open circut at the FG, then there would be around 10V across the internal Rgen of 50R.  10V divided by the 50R is 200ma.  This will vary a bit due to Vgs characteristics and device to device differences, so I believe I said some time ago I would "guess" Ibias to be around 150ma plus or minus 30ma or so.  Likely the circuit could be "played with" to get it to osc at a lower bias current.  Without knowing the open circuit voltage versus in circuit voltage of RA's FG, we cannot claculate Q2's Ibias.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 12:41:52 AM
Is the 200 mA really a DC current ?
What about the AC component flowing while the oscillations are happening ?

If we would use just a 9 Volts battery with a pot and put on the oscillations,
then we would pronbly only have an AC current, right ?
Or will we have an AC current superimposed on a DC 200 mA current ?

Maybe TK can measure this and show it on a new video ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
There appears to be a DC current. The "ac" can be measured wherever you hook a probe in the circuit. It's an RF oscillation that I can even hear on my FM radio.
I've posted a video showing the circuit with a 9v battery and pot.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 12:48:05 AM
Just to clarify one point;

"bias" means a certain amount of pos. DC VGS. This can be completely floating wrt the rest of the circuit.

So HOW you provide that bias, makes no difference whatsoever, it can be positive, negative, as long as VGS is slightly positive, say about 5V.

I have simulated both cases, where the bias is applied to the Source and the Gate. In other words, I have proven what I wrote above.

Yes, and the behaviour of Tar Baby bears that out as well. That's why I said that the two of you are in violent agreement on this point, I think. The problem arises when you try to have that bias supply connected to the main battery. This is going to put one or the other of the bias supply rails at the circuit ground potential, in other words, no longer floating, unless some circuitry like the voltage inverter is used, I think.

I have still not been able to make consistent oscillations using a simple hookup to the main battery for bias. External supply: no problem as long as it's floating.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 12:48:13 AM
I don't think we want 200mA of AC current flowing through our bias battery, that's why I isolated it.

With isolation, the battery supplies only a tiny DC current to slightly bias the MOSFET ON, and the AC path is provided capacitively, which bypasses the DC bias network.

.99,

I've re-read the above and I am now not quite sure what you are saying.

Regarding the method used to bias on Q2, AC current was not being discussed, other than its two paths.  From the RA first paper, much more than 200ma of AC current is indicated, but the present discussion was related to DC bias.

What is under question is if in the hypothetical situation I gave using a 200ma/Hr battery in series with a 50R at the Q2 source leg, and if the Q2 bias/quiescent DC current were 200ma, then the battery would last only around an hour, correct?   The question relates to whether or not the FG/555/battery in the source leg must provide 200ma to maintain Q2 biased on in the common gate configuration (or provide whatever the Q2 current is at DC).  If TK's 555 power supply is providing a supply current equal to or a bit more than the Q2 drain current, then the answer is yes, the FG/555/battery will have to be capable of supplying 200ma for the duration of any tests, hence any battery used as a bias supply must be sized accordingly.  I think TK's need for a heat sink on the 555 demonstrates this as well.  Again, bias current may not need to be as high as 200ma, I am only using that as an example.

PW

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 01:11:11 AM
TK,

I would decouple the wiper of the pot, or just use a 10K resistor from the first Bat+ to a cap and tie the other end of the cap to real ground (not the CSR, althogh you might want to try both ground points).  Then, to the junction of the resistor and cap, connect another resistor, 1Meg or so, and connect the other end of that high value resistor to the MOSFET gate.  You may have to add a bit of wire length between the end of the 1Meg and the gate to add some inductance to get the osc.  Possibly you will have to add some inductance (wire) in series with the 50R at the source as well.

PW

I think we are starting to lose the thread here. Whatever we do, I think it must terminate "as if" it were a dropin replacement for the FG in the NERD circuit. That means one terminal of it must connect to the point marked "FG +" and the other terminal must connect to "FG -" and if possible it must be capable of making both the negative-going drive which produces the oscillations without turning on Q1, AND it must also be able to make a positive drive voltage, turning Q1 on and _with enough negative_ to allow oscillations to occur. Please watch the video where I show this fine point using the function generator.
At least this is what I'm striving for, and I think this would be the fairest test for the circuit.

 "The Gate" in your post is ambiguous at this point. The "FG+" connection goes to the Q1 gate and the Q2 sources. The "FG-" connection goes to the Q1 source and the Q2 gates.  Are you saying I should hook the 1M to the "FG+" connection, and nothing to the "FG-" connection? Perhaps a drawing would be helpful.
But... I still don't see the difference between that and what I've already tried, but I'll try it anyway as soon as my head clears a bit.

There is a lot going on and I find myself in a strange position. I feel like I am doing what the NERDs should have done, a long time ago, and I feel that I am not only testing but I am actually developing and designing circuitry for them. And yet... look at how I am treated. All of this, in spite of RA's allegations, is on my own dime and my own time, and my "controllers" don't even know about it.

At any rate: I have attained several of the primary goals. I have shown the basic 555 timer circuit that can run in place of the FG for the negative going pulse mode, and I know why it won't work for the positive going high-heat mode. I've developed a floating supply that can be used with the main battery and the 555 timer to operate in the low-heat mode. I've also shown that continuous oscillations can be made with the external battery.

I'm very sure that these same things will also work with the NERD device... so I expect them to begin their testing any day now.


Don't I?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 01:43:36 AM
TK,

By "gate" I was referring to the gate of the four Q2's only, and all discussions using the positive voltage to the gate of Q2 have been with regard to Q1 being out of circuit.  Sorry, I thought we were just considering the osc portion of the circuit, I should have been more clear.   

You are right, of course, in that if the circuit deviates substantially from the NERD circuit, it will be argued that those modifications are responsible for any less than stellar observations during a run down test.

The only alternatives I can see would be to build an equivalent FG circuit running off an isolated DC to DC converter fed from the main batteries or use two batteries in series with their center taps tied to ground.  I would probably use low power opamps (for higher than the 555 rail voltage) configured as an astable and an output buffer with NPN/PNP emitter followers in the FB loop.  As stated, the supply could be a pair of batteries or an isolated DC-DC converter fed from the main batteries.  Though minimal, the added current draw on this circuit if operated from the main batteries would likely be questioned.  Even if the separate battery or batteries are used to operate the circuit, would that/those battery(s) going flat be considered proof of lack "over unity"?

If the "magic" happens during the osc phase, then I would focus only on Q2 as .99 has done in his burst osc as it should be possible to bias from the main batteries with very minimal current draw from those batteries using a similar circuit.

But, as you say, that is probably too different from the original circuit to be accepted.

As far as that goes, did not Rosemary say she already performed testing with this circuit using a 555 but was just having "stability" problems?  Possibly her circuit could be improved upon...

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 01:56:37 AM
Well, I think that Rosemary is in over her head when it comes to using a 555.  It's yet another bone to throw into the Bitches Brew. 
(That's a homage to Miles Davis.)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 20, 2012, 02:01:39 AM
Well, I think that Rosemary is in over her head when it comes to using a 555.  It's yet another bone to throw into the Bitches Brew. 
(That's a homage to Miles Davis.)

MileHigh

MileHigh.  I was enjoying the exceptional professionalism that is a new characteristic of this thread.  Are you trying to regress this back to the 'gossip' columns that you enjoy?  Related as it is to allegation, insinuation and general malignment of both my name and our work?  If you guys want an uninterrupted discussion - then I recommend that you keep 'on topic'.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 02:06:19 AM
Rosemary,

So how did you deal with the need for a negative voltage at the source of Q2/gate of Q1 when you performed tests with your circuit using the 555?

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 02:08:17 AM
Rosemary:

Do you have a plan or a circuit for having a 555 support both the positive and negative oscillation modes?  Or are you listening here to try to learn how to do it?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 20, 2012, 02:15:26 AM
MileHigh - it is well past my competence to put a 555 switch together.  I have never done this.  Nor could I.  I am learning NOTHING except for the way you guys tackle a problem.  It's circuitous but interesting.  And I'm reasonably certain that you'll eventually get the point.  And picowatt - I would not disclose how the guys put the circuit together - even if I could.  It's not my circuit. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 02:19:46 AM
Well I hope that you have 'backup' to help you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 20, 2012, 02:21:59 AM
Well I hope that you have 'backup' to help you.

No need for that 'hope'.  There's plenty available.  And all of it much required. 

R
I'd rather not keep answering your interjections if you don't mind MileHigh.  I'd prefer to see this argument progress.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 02:25:37 AM
Wait..... OK... so by applying a negative voltage to the _sources_ of the Q2s I am effectively applying a positive voltage to their gates. Effectively, right?
And with a floating supply there's no problem, except for the energy capacity of the supply and where this energy is going.

But the problem arises when one or the other of the points where the FG attaches... either the Q1 gate+2 sources, or the Q2 sources and the Q1 gate..... isn't floating but is tied to the circuit ground point at the negative rail. This happens when I try to use the most negative battery as the bias supply for the 555 timer directly, hence the need for the voltage inverter to give me a voltage that is truly more negative than the battery's negative pole.

If I just leave the "FG +" connection disconnected, and run a pot across the running battery's lowest unit, and take a wire from the wiper to the "FG -" point (Q2 gates, Q1 source) then I'll be effectively shorting that wiper back to the negative battery through the 1/4 ohm shunt. Like I said before, when I try this nothing happens. No change in the scope traces from flatline, I mean.  Certainly I am sending a current through the pot and the CVR but this is a closed loop and the gates don't care about it, apparently.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 02:33:36 AM
Okay TK,
now with your new video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)

with just the 9 Volt battery and the pot
we have the perfect oscillation, just oscillations and no more
switching ! Well done.

So this is the most easy way to get rid of the function generator
and Rosemary and her team should be able to replicate this.

P.S. The second oscillation you have shown were probably just
some weird 60 Hz jammed overlay of your scope not triggering
as you did float one side of the pot so it was not a real voltage divider anymore...

So please can you show now via a shunt resistor, where you measure the 200 mA
in the 9 Volt battery case ?
Is that flowing through your 50 Ohms shunt ?
Can you please show a scope shot  on this shunt resistor ?

Many thanks.

Regards. Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 02:36:48 AM
No need for that 'hope'.  There's plenty available.  And all of it much required. 

R
I'd rather not keep answering your interjections if you don't mind MileHigh.  I'd prefer to see this argument progress.

Rosemary, MH first said that you are over your head when it comes to the 555. You then CHOSE to jump in and berated him, you insulted him and once again started your same old same old. Then.... you had to agree that he was RIGHT, you don't know a 555 from an op amp and won't be bothered to learn, not even from this thread.

Now... please go away, you are not helping at all, in fact you have once again diverted the thread from the topic and you  HAVE NOT ANSWERED A RELEVANT DIRECT QUESTION.

And not only that but I am doing YOUR WORK FOR YOU and I resent your attitude. Please go away.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 02:40:51 AM
PW:

Quote
The only alternatives I can see would be to build an equivalent FG circuit running off an isolated DC to DC converter fed from the main batteries or use two batteries in series with their center taps tied to ground.  I would probably use low power opamps (for higher than the 555 rail voltage) configured as an astable and an output buffer with NPN/PNP emitter followers in the FB loop.  As stated, the supply could be a pair of batteries or an isolated DC-DC converter fed from the main batteries.  Though minimal, the added current draw on this circuit if operated from the main batteries would likely be questioned.  Even if the separate battery or batteries are used to operate the circuit, would that/those battery(s) going flat be considered proof of lack "over unity"?

My gawd, I qualified you in perhaps less than 8 postings and you are really good.  With op-amps fed by a 555, and a separate set of batteries and the NPN/PNP emitter followers it's like you are building a whole function generator.  lol

When you think about it, if you have to rely on a separate power source to emulate the function generator, you may as well just keep the bloody function generator.

I think that there may some misconstrued attributes assigned to the function generator.  In positive 'high power' mode, as long as the square wave frequency is fairly low, then the function generator is not really adding any power to the circuit and it is not recharging the batteries.

In negative oscillation mode, and assuming that the function generator is grounded before the current sensing resistor (and I am sill not convinced any of Rosemary's data captures were done like this), and knowing the open-circuit negative output voltage of the function generator itself, you can simply factor in how much the function generator is contributing to the powering of the circuit.  In that sense the function generator is just an 'ideal battery' that never depletes.

And of course in negative oscillation mode the function generator is not recharging the batteries either.  You can actually state that it's helping the batteries to discharge.  And Rosemary is using the function generator as a de facto negative DC source in this case anyways.  The NERDs were simply not aware of how the function generator fit into the circuit.

With that ground loop issue in mind, the function generator may have to be run off of an isolation transformer so the whole thing floats.

All this to discharge a bunch of batteries or to save the world.  Such dilemmas!  lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 02:51:11 AM
Hi TK,
in your video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)

it is not possible that there are flowing 200 mA DC bias current,
as you have a 10 KOhm pot and you turn it up into the center and
then only the oscillations occure at around Minute 2:20 .

But then the pot has already around 2000 to 5000 Ohms in this position
so the maximal current then able to flow from the battery is only around 1.8
to maximum 4.5 mA  at 9 Volts...
Just Ohms law...

So I don´t see the 9 Volt battery go flat very fast at this current level....

So a 200 mA DC bias current seems to be not required....

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 02:57:23 AM
Okay TK,
now with your new video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)

with just the 9 Volt battery and the pot
we have the perfect oscillation, just oscillations and no more
switching ! Well done.
Thank you. Unfortunately this will only work for the negative-going gate signal mode. Simply applying a positive battery voltage to the positive FG point results in hard turn on of the Q1 mosfet and, since there is no negative component there will be no oscillations. For the oscillations to happen, regardless of pulse polarity and mosfets switching or not, there has to be a voltage at the negative FG hookup point that is at least 4 volts more negative than the negative battery terminal, or if floating, than the other FG hookup point.

Quote
So this is the most easy way to get rid of the function generator
and Rosemary and her team should be able to replicate this.
Yes, one would think so. I imagine that if there actually is a "team" somewhere they are frantically trying to figure out why their batteries are now running down when they apparently didn't before. Otherwise... why haven't they shown a test already? I mean, how hard is it to hook up a battery and a pot? Even I could manage to do it.
However, the current drain on the battery will limit its lifetime, and the power it inserts into the circuit must be accounted for.
Quote
P.S. The second oscillation you have shown were probably just
some weird 60 Hz jammed overlay of your scope not triggering
as you did float one side of the pot so it was not a real voltage divider anymore...
No, it wasn't 60 Hz. The scope has a "line" setting on its trigger so it can trigger on the powerline frequency... the second oscillations were at about 25 MHz. The scope actually did trigger on it but the trace was so dim it was hard to see on the video.
Quote

So please can you show now via a shunt resistor, where you measure the 200 mA
in the 9 Volt battery case ?
I may be able to do so. I've been using a Hickock inline moving-coil meter and it is easy to peg it against the 100 mA stop.
Quote
Is that flowing through your 50 Ohms shunt ?
Can you please show a scope shot  on this shunt resistor ?
I wouldn't call this series gate resistor a "shunt" exactly. And I've found that 50R is too much and limits the current to 45-65 mA. Using a 10R instead I am able to "just" peg the Hickock at a tiny bit over 100 mA max. With no resistor I can easily exceed 300 mA when the mosfets start turning on. So when the mosfets are on or oscillating hard, there appears to be a low impedance path around for the 9v battery's current. I don't know if this goes through the load and/or the CVR. I think it probably doesn't, and just heats the mosfets, but I'm not sure at this point. If I scope across this 10R resistor, I'll have to disconnect all the other probes because neither end is at the circuit's ground potential, I think. We shall see.
(ETA: I should mention that my 9v battery is about dead, it's only indicating 8 volts or so, so maybe with a fresh battery the 50R series resistor would work better.)
Quote
Many thanks.

Regards. Stefan.

You're welcome, I'm glad to oblige.

We still need to figure out how to make the positive gate drive, high-heat mode with the 555 or battery and still get oscillations, though. I was hoping the Voltage Inverter would work out for that, but at this point I can't even remember if I tested that mode or not.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 03:03:22 AM
TK,

Regarding your 9V battery video:

First, when you show the 9V across the pot and adjusted for oscillation.  Do you still have your DC milliammeter in the loop, if so, at what current draw does the onset of oscillation happn?  That 10K pot would drop much more voltage for a given Ibias then your 555's 10R or the FG's 50R unless you were very close to the end of the pot's rotation.  Also, as your oscillation looks a lot cleaner than RA's, it does look like the circuit is being biased at a different operating point.

Second, as for hooking the first main battery across the pot, the best you would be able to do with that is turn on Q1.  Have you looked at .99's burst osc schematic?  I was referring to applying a positive voltage to the gates of Q2 and omitting Q1 altogether.  Look at .99's schematic and you will see what I am talking about.

Third, regarding attaching the positive of the 9V to the main battery string negative terminal, I would think placing a 10R to 50R, possibly even 100R, between the 9V negative and the Q2 source terminal should start the osc.  Possibly use the MOSFET end of the CSR instead of "real" ground for the 9V plus terminal connection.

If you think about it, the first and last part of the video are essentially the same, as in both instances the positive terminal of the 9V was tied to ground, but in the first part you used the MOSFET end of the CSR and not the battery ground.

Of most interest to me, is what amount of current are you having to pass thru the 9V to make the circuit oscillate?  If you have the pot set so that the wiper resistance is very high compared to the FG's 50R (or your 555's 10R), your Ibias will be much lower than was likely used in the RA tests with the FG or with your 555.

PW

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 03:04:26 AM
TK:

Quote
Wait..... OK... so by applying a negative voltage to the _sources_ of the Q2s I am effectively applying a positive voltage to their gates. Effectively, right?

Exactly.  Good old relativity.  So as you pull the source of the Q2 array down, then current starts to flow out through the source and into the function generator.  Obviously if a lot of current flows into the function generator (let's say it looks like a 50 ohm resistance going to a negative 12-volt 'ground') then the input resistance of the function generator will cause a voltage "bump up."  If the voltage "bump up" is high enough to bring the voltage to the true ground potential, then the Q2 array shuts off.  But if the Q2 array shuts off, then there is no current flow, and hence no "bump up" and the potential at the source node gets pulled down again by the 50-ohm resistor.  Therefore the Q2 array starts to switch on, current flows, which causes a "bump up" which switches the Q2 array off and then the potential is pulled down yet again by the 50-ohm resistor and so on and so on and so on.

I am not saying that is the root cause of the oscillation but as you can see, since you are pulling the Q2 source down towards the negative potential of the function generator through a 50-ohm "damping" resistor, as the current starts to flow, it tends to make the Q2 array want to shut off - which then makes the Q2 array switch on.  So the circuit is in a crazy kind of balancing act and it screams as a result.

Just delicious!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 03:18:32 AM
Hi TK,
in your video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU)

it is not possible that there are flowing 200 mA DC bias current,
as you have a 10 KOhm pot and you turn it up into the center and
then only the oscillations occure at around Minute 2:20 .

But then the pot has already around 2000 to 5000 Ohms in this position
so the maximal current then able to flow from the battery is only around 1.8
to maximum 4.5 mA  at 9 Volts...
Just Ohms law...
No, perhaps I wasn't being clear. The oscillations _begin_ at a relatively centered pot, but the magnitude increases as the pot is turned further, and the "robust" oscillations happen near one end of the pot's travel, at this point. Even with other sources, there is that "voltage floor" that indicates that, over about 4 volts negative, there is suddenly a low impedance path activated and the current goes up. You have to enter this voltage area for the oscillations to occur.
Quote
So I don´t see the 9 Volt battery go flat very fast at this current level....
The 9v battery has indeed gone flat fairly fast during my testing today, and it's gotten warm, too. I have been trying for a setting that gives me right at 100 mA from the 9v battery, and that gives me about 190-200 mA indicated on the inline ammeter at the main battery, which I know will produce measurable load heating in a reasonable time. And will deplete my batteries in a reasonable time... although.... they are STILL over 12 volts each, and I haven't recharged them since many working days.
Quote
So a 200 mA DC bias current seems to be not required....
It depends on what you mean by "required". To get the oscillations of great magnitude, which indicate that the Q2s are partially conducting... hence heating the load.... I need to be able to supply substantial current, as far as I can tell. Since the magnitude of the oscillations is set by the voltage level, and the current then flows according to the voltage, I'm not sure if one can get oscillations without the current, just with the applied voltage. .99 and PW seem to think that you can, but I haven't had a chance to try all of their ideas yet. Certainly whenever I've been able to get oscillations, the current flow goes with, in lockstep. There has been one exception and that was when I cap-coupled the FG to the very early 2n7000 circuit. It oscillated fine, switched fine, and no DC current was able to flow in that gate drive loop.
So I think the bias source should be able to source 200 mA if asked to, but it's not always necessary to ask it to.
Quote
Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 03:39:17 AM
TK,

I was always curious about your cap coupled to the source early FG experiments.  What did you use for a cap?

I would think the same Ibias would flow through the cap and would be seen as the voltage across the cap discharging when the FG is negative.  You might not have noticed with faster/shorter switching periods, or with a very large cap, but that Q2 source DC current has to flow somewhere.  If you AC couple the 9V battery, as you did the FG, you could "flip" the polarity once (to simulate FG switching) and having now charged the cap, the circuit will oscillate until the cap discharges.

Regarding the other bias circuit, again, that was with Q1 removed, a 50R placed across the FG terminal connection points (Q2 source to CSR), and then applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 instead of having it at ground potential.  Without those mods, the use of a positive voltage from the main battery string can only be used to turn on Q1 (as you stated).

I would think that in your use of the 9V batery as in the first part of the video, the DC drain current, or observed DC current at the CSR, should be the same as what you would measure coming from the 9V.  Possibly the oscillations are affecting an ammeter, particular if not perfectly symmetrical or sinusoidal?

PW

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 03:46:28 AM
TK,

Regarding your 9V battery video:

First, when you show the 9V across the pot and adjusted for oscillation.  Do you still have your DC milliammeter in the loop, if so, at what current draw does the onset of oscillation happn?  That 10K pot would drop much more voltage for a given Ibias then your 555's 10R or the FG's 50R unless you were very close to the end of the pot's rotation.  Also, as your oscillation looks a lot cleaner than RA's, it does look like the circuit is being biased at a different operating point.
The problem with batteries is that they do run down. I realise now that that 9v battery is almost flat in that video, showing about 8.4 volts no-load. That's probably why I found that the 50R series resistor was too large and limited the Ibias to about 45-65 mA even when the pot was cranked to the stop. So I changed to 10R and this gives me just almost exactly 100 mA on the Hickock. Onset of oscillation happens at about 12 mA and increases in amplitude until the max pot stop is reached. Yes, my oscs seemed cleaner.... because of the flat battery and the lack of voltage. At more voltage the oscs become increasingly distorted from that nice sinusoid.

Quote

Second, as for hooking the first main battery across the pot, the best you would be able to do with that is turn on Q1.  Have you looked at .99's burst osc schematic?  I was referring to applying a positive voltage to the gates of Q2 and omitting Q1 altogether.  Look at .99's schematic and you will see what I am talking about.
Yes, you are right and I have seen the schematic and sim results, and I know exactly what you are talking about, now that I know what "the gate" means. I guess you know that I've shown the oscs happening while Q1 is physically removed from its socket. But remember... there is another operating mode of the NERD device, one which turns on Q1 almost correctly, while still oscillating the Q2s in the usual manner. This is the one you've been asking about from their anomalous scope traces: the positive gate pulse which SHOULD show a current in their "shunt" but in some cases does not.... while in my system with known good mosfets and heatsinks, it always does.


Quote
Third, regarding attaching the positive of the 9V to the main battery string negative terminal, I would think placing a 10R to 50R, possibly even 100R, between the 9V negative and the Q2 source terminal should start the osc.  Possibly use the MOSFET end of the CSR instead of "real" ground for the 9V plus terminal connection.
I'm not following you here. As soon as I touch the positive pole of the 9v battery to the negative pole of the main battery, the "second" type of oscillations begins, regardless of whatever else I have hooked up where, apparently. Are you thinking that making the connection you suggest will stop these 25 MHz oscillations and allow the other ones to be produced?

In the circuit I'm using, I'm putting the "FG -" point right where it is supposed to be by Ainslie in the schematic that she "has said she has said" is the correct one. That is, I am on the transistor side of the CVR. This is NOT how it was wired for the demo video, apparently, but after being asked repeatedly what is correct and having her not being responsive to the issue, fuzzytomcat and .99 and I seem to have agreed that the correct schematic is the one I'm using as posted below, with the "MOSFET end of the CSR instead of "real" ground for the 9V plus terminal connection" just as it is portrayed in the schematic... but I'd rather call it the "FG -" connection, even though in this case it is the +9v connection. I think. If there's another "official" schematic I can do that too.... and I'll be another increment pissed off.
Quote
If you think about it, the first and last part of the video are essentially the same, as in both instances the positive terminal of the 9V was tied to ground, but in the first part you used the MOSFET end of the CSR and not the battery ground.
Yes, I think that's right, and in the first case--- the case of the NERD schematic.... I think the current didn't go through the CSR but may have contributed to the power dissipation. Does it (the power from the bias supply) get to the load, or is it dissipated in the mosfets, or what? Where and how to account for it, if the hookup is made on the transistor side of the CVR?
Quote
Of most interest to me, is what amount of current are you having to pass thru the 9V to make the circuit oscillate?  If you have the pot set so that the wiper resistance is very high compared to the FG's 50R (or your 555's 10R), your Ibias will be much lower than was likely used in the RA tests with the FG or with your 555.

PW
The circuit begins perceptible oscillations at about 12-15 mA on the inline meter. As the pot approaches the end of travel, the oscillations increase in amplitude, and the Ibias goes up. I've replaced your 50R with a 10R and this gives me 100 mA, about, on the Hickock with the pot fully turned. But my battery is weak so this will all change.

I do have some 78 series regulators in the box over there.
 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 03:47:22 AM
TK,

With as much as you've worked on this today, I guess you did indeed not get any "real work" done!

Your efforts are appreciated.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 04:01:26 AM
TK,

I was always curious about your cap coupled to the source early FG experiments.  What did you use for a cap?
It was a little bitty ceramic cap that worked the best. I don't remember exactly but maybe 0.1 mF or even 0.01 mF. I do remember that bigger caps screwed up the waveshape. And I remember also that I couldn't get that same cap to work with the bigger mosfets, neither the 830a or the PG50, and when I tried bigger caps they didn't work well either. I don't have a cap substitution box... wait a minute yes I DO, I just remembered... where is that thing...... argh it will take me a while to dig it out if I can even remember which box it's in.
Quote

I would think the same Ibias would flow through the cap and would be seen as the voltage across the cap discharging when the FG is negative.  You might not have noticed with faster/shorter switching periods, or with a very large cap, but that Q2 source DC current has to flow somewhere.  If you AC couple the 9V battery, as you did the FG, you could "flip" the polarity once (to simulate FG switching) and having now charged the cap, the circuit will oscillate until the cap discharges.
Yes, I've seen that happen too. Perpetual oscillations until the gate was grounded to get rid of the charge, which may have been resupplied by capacitive coupling elsewhere in the circuit to keep it going.
Quote
Regarding the other bias circuit, again, that was with Q1 removed, a 50R placed across the FG terminal connection points (Q2 source to CSR), and then applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 instead of having it at ground potential.  Without those mods, the use of a positive voltage from the main battery string can only be used to turn on Q1 (as you stated).

I would think that in your use of the 9V batery as in the first part of the video, the DC drain current, or observed DC current at the CSR, should be the same as what you would measure coming from the 9V.  Possibly the oscillations are affecting an ammeter, particular if not perfectly symmetrical or sinusoidal?

Yes, that's right as  long as the mosfets aren't very on. Once they start carrying current the DC drain current... what I'm looking at with the inline ammeter at the battery.... increases over the value indicated at the Ibias meter.  15 mA Ib on the Hickock gives me 10-20 mA on the inline DMM (resolution issues) and 100 mA Ib on the Hickok gives me 190 mA on the inline DMM.
I'm not trusting the absolute values given by the inline DMM but it is consistent and therefore useful nevertheless, even if its accuracy is affected by the RF.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 04:02:52 AM
Hi TK,
please set the 10 K pot to the oscillation setting at around -4 Volts,
then remove it and measure the resistances from
the center tap to the 2 ends of the pot.

I guess it is still at least 1 kOhm in this setting,
so at 9 Volts then a maximum of about 10 Milliamps
can only flow as a DC current from the battery...
( 1 Kohm parallel to 9 KOhm as the lowest resistance !)

Maybe the oscillations just flow as an AC current then due to the stray capacitance
via your loose wires setup so the battery is drawn flat from the AC currents ?

With the DC currents it can not go flat, if your pot is set to about -4 Volts what you said.
as this is about the center of the pot and then you have at least about 3 to 5 Kohm on each side of the battery,
so  the DC current can not get bigger than 5 to 10 milliamps... It is just Ohms law...so 200 mA is wrong.

So if it gets flat it is either a bad old battery or the AC current sucks all the energy out of it....


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 04:03:27 AM
TK,

With as much as you've worked on this today, I guess you did indeed not get any "real work" done!

Your efforts are appreciated.

PW

Thanks. I managed to walk the wild canine, but that's about all I've really gotten done today.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 04:13:29 AM
TK,

With only 9volts to work with, you will have to reduce the 50R as you did to get a similar bias current.  My estimates were based on the FG at full offset approaching -14 volts and an Rgen of 50R.  As I have been saying, 100-200ma of Ibias may not be required if other aspects are played with, i.e., changing wire lengths/layout for changes in inductance and strays.

I would think that the FG would act similarly to your 9V and be an additional "battery" in series with the main battery string and included in the whole loop.  If 100ma DC is flowing, then I would think the battery, or FG, is acting like a "battery" and discharging a similar amount of current.  As the overall available voltage is higher (i.e., the negative source in series with the main battery string) overall dissipation will increase a bit at the load due to the higher "loop" voltage.

Again, the required bias current may be much lower 150ma.  I use FETs all the time biased in the microampere range, but I have never attempted such low bias currents with a power MOSFET.  We do not know RA's FG settings so we cannot estimate the bias current in her tests.  In reference to one test she indicated full negative offset with the FG, and that is what I based my 150ma plus or minus 30-40ma and a maximum of around 200ma estimates on.  And that would be dependent on the Q2 device temperature as well.

With a fresh 9V battery, and its positive terminal tied to the MOSFET side of the CSR, a resistor of approx 30R between the 9V battery negative and the source of Q2 should give somewhere around 150ma of bias current (plus or minus 30ma or so).  Again, the actual current will depend on the FET turn on variances and the temp of Q2.

The reason I always "push" for 50R is that it allows strays to act similarly to the NERD circuit.  But as those are also not well defined, I would try to bias the circuit so that the oscillations look similar to the scope shots in the first paper (with regard to their symmetry and clipping).

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 04:26:10 AM
Hi TK,
please set the 1ß K pot to the oscillation setting,
then remove it and measure the resistances from
the center tap to the 2 ends.

I guess it is still at least 1 kOhm in this setting,
so at 9 Volts then maximum of about 10 Milliamps
can only flow as a DC current from the battery...
( 1 Kohm parallel to 9 KOhm as the lowest resistance !)

Maybe the oscillations just flow as an AC current then due to the stray capacitance
via your loose wires setup so the battery is drawn flat from the AC currents ?

With the DC currents it can not go flat, if your pot is set to about -4 Volts what you said.
as this is about the center of the pot and then you have at least about 3 to 5 Kohm on each side of the battery,
so  the DC current can not get bigger than 5 to 10 milliamps... It is just Ohms law...

So if it gets flat it is either a bad old battery or the AC current sucks all the energy out of it....


Regards, Stefan.

No, I think you are still not understanding me, or I am not understanding you. The minus 4 volts is some kind of "floor". The oscillations just begin at low amplitude when you reach this value, and the current from the 9v is about 15 mA. Now if you keep turning the pot, the voltage _Indicated_ stays at 4 volts... because you are now feeding a low impedance load somewhere, and increasing the pot setting just sends more current but the apparent voltage stays at -4 volts _indicated_.  This is the "voltage floor" phenomenon that .99 mentioned from his sim and that apparently also occurs in the NERD device, since none of their negative going gate drive traces go more negative than this.
The oscillations grow in amplitude and the current from the 9v increases as you rotate the pot. With the combination of the partially depleted battery, the 10R series resistor and the pot set ALL THE WAY to one end, the current is 100 mA on the moving-coil meter, and could be much higher with a fresh battery and no series resistor.

The only way that the AC current---really RF---could suck the energy from the battery is by turning on the mosfets partially and allowing them to dissipate the 9v battery's power as heat.

There is no one "oscillation setting" of the pot. The oscillations start small and grow, until with ridiculous voltages like 15 volts _applied_ but not _indicated_  (the voltage floor) you are chancing exceeding the voltage limits of the mosfet gates-- but you have huge oscillations and the mosfets are passing a lot of current. 4 or 5 amps through the mosfets is easy to obtain if you have the main voltage up above 48 volts and can source 350 mA from the bias source-- and by Ohm's law this is telling us that the mosfets are completely or nearly completely on with that amplitude of oscillation, and of course the load heats very rapidly under that current.

My "10K" pot actually measures 11.2 K on the Simpson DMM, and the wiper is 380 ohms from the end that's connected to the negative pole of the 9v battery when the oscillations just begin and the Hickok meter is indicating 14 mA. Turning the pot so that the resistance is less, makes the current go up. And when the wiper is at the most negative end and the inline 10R is used, the current is 100 mA or slightly more. But my battery now measures 7,95 volts no-load, so all these numbers will change with a fresh battery or another current source.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 04:33:42 AM
@PW: Let's go for 100 mA bias current. This keeps it on the Hickok meter, and it makes nicely formed oscillations, and more importantly it gives me a stable and manageable 190-200 mA on the inline DMM which seems to reflect what the load is getting fairly accurately as far as I can tell so far. This produces easily measurable heat and fairly rapid battery depletion with my 5 A-H batteries, and should give manageable run times with NERD's batteries too... ten times longer but still manageable.

So with a fresh 9v, or with a regulated 12 volts input to the Voltage Inverter/Clock, or some other source... it seems that the 10R series resistor is minimum and 50R is a max... maybe I should put a nice wirewound 100R precision pot in there instead of the fixed series resistor.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 04:47:22 AM
I now see, where you get the high current from
the 9 Volts battery.

See enclosed circuit diagramm.

It is discharging through the Rshunt resistor !
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 05:03:19 AM
So now here is the solution to avoid the
DC current draining of the 9 Volts battery.

Please TK let us know if you get it to work this way.
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 05:50:23 AM
Stefan:

The second schematic you posted has problems.  The current flow from the Q2 array source is bypassing the shunt resistor so you are not measuring the current flow through the Q2 array.

The 10K potentiometer concept from TK is unfortunately fundamentally flawed.  The impedance going through the 10K potentiometer is too high and it will choke off the normal current flow.  There is supposed to be an impedance of 50 ohms at all times.

PW suggested a direct resistor connection between the 9-volt battery negative and the Q2 source node.  It would be lower than 50 ohms, perhaps 30 ohms.  This would allow approximately the same amount of current to flow through the circuit as compared to when you have a 50 ohm resistor connected to the function generator negative output.   However, even this has an issue.  This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.

Like I said before, I personally don't see any point in going this route.  The function generator in negative oscillation mode injects power into the circuit, but it does not in any way inject power into the batteries.   The batteries will still discharge with the function generator in the circuit.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 05:54:03 AM
TK,

That "floor" as you cal it is the gate to source turn on voltage.  Once you are up and into the turn on knee of Q2, the voltage at the source will vary only a small amount around that 4 volts unless you try to get the bias current well in the amps range.  If you look at the IRFPG50 data sheet at the turn on characteristics graph, the voltage observed at the source and the current measured will folllow that graph pretty much.  But in the 50ma to 300ma range, you may only see .5 to 1 volt of change at the source.

The series pot would be OK, but a wirewound ,though great for handling the current, will add more inductance.

In Stefan's schematic he has the bias source connected to real ground instead of the CSR, which will not allow the DC bias current to be accounted for and calculated into total power draw.  Also, even if Ibias is set to 25ma, the 9V will eventually drain even at that rate.  A good alkaline might get you a bit more than 500mAh of use, so around 20 hours at 25ma.  A 9volt lithium will provide around 1200mAh, so run time would be longer if used.  The additional load from the 10K pot, at just under 1ma would also add to the battery drain.

I do like the series pot idea you mentioned, as it would allow you to set current while observing the waveforms.  I would try to set the bias so that the oscillations resemble the clipped sines in the first paper FIG 4.

What's your "wild dog's" name?

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 06:05:55 AM
Stefan:
Sorry, the first diagram is wrong, there is no connection between the pot and the main battery negative, the whole 9v system is "floating", and you have the battery upside down .... and the second diagram is what makes the second type of oscillations as soon as I touch the positive of the 9v to the negative of the main battery, and these oscillations persist regardless of the other connection points until I remove the connection between the 9v + and the main --.
(I just discovered that the color code of the long red-black battery cable connector is backwards. The red wire goes to the negative battery pole. Sorry... it happened because I was using that cable as a "battery" to connect the power supply to the 555 timer, so I wired it backwards in the first place and forgot to change it when it got hooked up TO the battery, instead of AS the battery.  The diagram below shows the correct polarities and hookups for the battery and pot, I've checked it several times and have it running right now behind me.)

The correct hookup for the negative bias pot-battery configuration....:

(ETA: I forgot to put in the Hickok moving-coil milliammeter. It goes in series with the 10R (or 50R etc.)  and the pot wiper.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 06:09:37 AM
Stefan:

The second schematic you posted has problems.  The current flow from the Q2 array source is bypassing the shunt resistor so you are not measuring the current flow through the Q2 array.

The 10K potentiometer concept from TK is unfortunately fundamentally flawed.  The impedance going through the 10K potentiometer is too high and it will choke off the normal current flow.  There is supposed to be an impedance of 50 ohms at all times.

PW suggested a direct resistor connection between the 9-volt battery negative and the Q2 source node.  It would be lower than 50 ohms, perhaps 30 ohms.  This would allow approximately the same amount of current to flow through the circuit as compared to when you have a 50 ohm resistor connected to the function generator negative output.   However, even this has an issue.  This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.

Like I said before, I personally don't see any point in going this route.  The function generator in negative oscillation mode injects power into the circuit, but it does not in any way inject power into the batteries.   The batteries will still discharge with the function generator in the circuit.

MileHigh

MH,

That "bounce up" as you call it is negative feedback.  And yes, changing the 50R with any other value will affect the amount of negative feedback (circuit gain) and the ability of inductances and strays to shift the phase of that neg. feedback (if phase shifted sufficiently, that negative feedback can become positive feedback, which will cause the circuit to oscillate).  There are other feedback mechanisms as well related to the CSR and a couple other sources that occur relative to AC.

I have always suggested keeping the source resistor close to the 50R similar to the NERD circuit.  A higher voltage battery could be used in place of the 9volt if 50R is used and a higher Ibias is desired (than a 9volt will allow).  But, again, we don't really know the NERD bias current.  I would temporarily go back to a bench supply and a 50R and vary the applied voltage (and therefore Ibias) until the waveforms have the same clipped appearance as in FIG 4 of the first paper, and then note the bias current/supply voltage.  From that a suitable battery voltage could be selected to provide a similar operating bias point.  With the bias current determined, the bias supply battery can be sized to provide the required run time.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 06:15:35 AM
@ALL,

Wow, everybody jumped at the same time regarding that ground point connection...

I am just too slow.

TK's on the ball!

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 06:27:42 AM
TK,

That "floor" as you cal it is the gate to source turn on voltage.  Once you are up and into the turn on knee of Q2, the voltage at the source will vary only a small amount around that 4 volts unless you try to get the bias current well in the amps range.  If you look at the IRFPG50 data sheet at the turn on characteristics graph, the voltage observed at the source and the current measured will folllow that graph pretty much.  But in the 50ma to 300ma range, you may only see .5 to 1 volt of change at the source.

The series pot would be OK, but a wirewound ,though great for handling the current, will add more inductance.

In Stefan's schematic he has the bias source connected to real ground instead of the CSR, which will not allow the DC bias current to be accounted for and calculated into total power draw.  Also, even if Ibias is set to 25ma, the 9V will eventually drain even at that rate.  A good alkaline might get you a bit more than 500mAh of use, so around 20 hours at 25ma.  A 9volt lithium will provide around 1200mAh, so run time would be longer if used.  The additional load from the 10K pot, at just under 1ma would also add to the battery drain.

I do like the series pot idea you mentioned, as it would allow you to set current while observing the waveforms.  I would try to set the bias so that the oscillations resemble the clipped sines in the first paper FIG 4.

What's you "wild dog's" name?

PW

Maggie is her name. She's a feral dog that was rescued as an adolescent puppy from a pack that was roaming one of the local large greenbelt parks. I think she's part coyote and part chow. She's the most vocal dog I've ever met, not so much barking but talking. And she is totally not motivated by treats, since she knows perfectly well how to scrounge grubs and garbage and hunt lizards and mice for her food. After a full year of constant contact with me she finally is beginning to act like a dog rather than a wily coyote.

The Paper 1, Fig 4 waveforms are typical of what I see if I use higher drive voltages.

Stefan's schematic is wrong, probably my fault for having the color code on the battery wires mixed up. The 9volt system is entirely floating, too, the way I use it. If I also connect the _positive_ side of the battery/pot to the circuit negative rail common ground, it makes only a tiny difference in the gate signal and none in the oscillations on the common drains. If I connect the _negative_ side of the battery/pot to the circuit common ground, it kills everything.

Your explanation of the "floor" is also what I came up with, once I realized the relationship between the polarities and the actual potential difference between gate and source. I was confused by the "negative" going floor... when it's actually a positive going ceiling, so to speak !! It all makes good sense to me now.

Damn carbon pots in my lab always seem to develop holes in the resistive layer from current surges and cause all kinds of problems. Even the one I'm using now has a burned spot in it. A little inductance more or less from a wirewound pot probably won't turn out to be the reason my batteries discharge, though.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 06:32:27 AM
Stefan:

The second schematic you posted has problems.  The current flow from the Q2 array source is bypassing the shunt resistor so you are not measuring the current flow through the Q2 array.

The 10K potentiometer concept from TK is unfortunately fundamentally flawed.  The impedance going through the 10K potentiometer is too high and it will choke off the normal current flow.  There is supposed to be an impedance of 50 ohms at all times.

PW suggested a direct resistor connection between the 9-volt battery negative and the Q2 source node.  It would be lower than 50 ohms, perhaps 30 ohms.  This would allow approximately the same amount of current to flow through the circuit as compared to when you have a 50 ohm resistor connected to the function generator negative output.   However, even this has an issue.  This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.

Like I said before, I personally don't see any point in going this route.  The function generator in negative oscillation mode injects power into the circuit, but it does not in any way inject power into the batteries.   The batteries will still discharge with the function generator in the circuit.

MileHigh

MH,

I've always doubted the ability of the FG to charge the battery as well, unless some amount of charge pump action is going on.  The body diodes and inherent capacitances may to some degree allow this action.  A normal FG (not TK's, his is not "normal") can contribute around 2 watts max.  At a DC bias of 100ma, and Vbatt of 48 volts, that's 4.8 watts, so although charge pumping may contribute, if it were happening, I don't see it as enough to keep the battery charged.  Whether any charge pump like action is happening or not would have to be determined, but I lean towards agreeing with you.

Also, if the battery were being charged from the HF oscillation, I would think the AC at the battery would show evidence of clipping at closer to the battery voltage during the positive half of the cycle.  That is why I questioned the SLA battery's AC impedance.  I may hook up an FG to my vehice battery to see what the AC impedane of it is.  It appears that the AC is not being loaded much by the battery impedance.


PW

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 06:40:11 AM
TK,

Does Maggie have enough chow to have the purple tongue?  Great dogs.  I am trying to picture in the coyote.  Around here the coyotes are a skinny, somewhat scroungey looking critter.

After all that "independence", your lucky she's taking a shine to you...

PW

PS.. you'll hve to have Maggie narrate a video!!
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 20, 2012, 06:42:39 AM
This would change the "bounce up" voltage potential when current flows through the circuit as compared to the function generator/50-ohm resistance.

MileHigh
LMFAO!  you just failed your own 'lingo litmus test'.  bounce up... that's hilarious.

and turn on voltage is now the 'floor'... or 'ceiling'.  ::)

pretenders to wisdom...
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 06:46:54 AM
I agreed some time ago that the FG wasn't charging the batteries appreciably. I wasn't sure if it was contributing to heating the load much, though.  Certainly it's not able to contribute much to the high-heat, positive gate drive pulse mode with Q1 mostly on. That's why I said it would be OK with me for the NERDs to go ahead and use the FG for testing, as long as they used the high-heat, positive gate pulse mode that showed some amps on the CVR trace. Run it like that for 72 hours, using a 72 volt battery pack. No fans or modifications to the Q1 heatsink allowed, though, and a mosfet failure counts as a test failure. Then, after 72 hours maintaining the +12 volt gate drive impulses-- or better yet steady state -- do the Dim Bulb trials.

Or, more realistically, since I know that the Q1 couldn't take the strain under those conditions... they can use the 48 volt pack as in the video. So use the FG if it will speed up their test schedule, by all means. If the batteries don't run down while using the FG and heating the load to high heat, perhaps there is something we've missed, and so then a plain battery bias or 555 circuit could be tried -- if necessary.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 06:47:13 AM
The Chet-monster speaks.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 06:47:24 AM
LMFAO!  you just failed your own 'lingo litmus test'.  bounce up... that's hilarious.

and turn on voltage is now the 'floor'... or 'ceiling'.  ::)

pretenders to wisdom...

Wilby,

His description of the action/effect was, however, quite accurate.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 20, 2012, 06:49:01 AM
Wilby,

His description of the action/effect was, however, quite accurate.

PW
that's irrelevant to his lingo litmus test.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 06:51:15 AM
TK,

Does Maggie have enough chow to have the purple tongue?  Great dogs.  I am trying to picture in the coyote.  Around here the coyotes are a skinny, somewhat scroungey looking critter.

After all that "independence", your lucky she's taking a shine to you...

PW

PS.. you'll hve to have Maggie narrate a video!!

Her tongue is about 1/3 purple. Her tapetums have a very odd color for a dog, more coyote or wolf-like when she stares at you in the dark with those glowing eyes.
We made a video called "dogs can't talk" that's on my channel underneath all the OU stuff somewhere.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 06:58:33 AM
Her tongue is about 1/3 purple. Her tapetums have a very odd color for a dog, more coyote or wolf-like when she stares at you in the dark with those glowing eyes.
We made a video called "dogs can't talk" that's on my channel underneath all the OU stuff somewhere.

TK,

I just watched the video.  Maggie is a great looking dog.  Love those ears and that tail.

And yes, she sure can talk!

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 20, 2012, 07:06:13 AM
PW:

Yes thanks for reminding me that the "bounce up" is a form of negative feedback.  I am getting a bit rusty in general.  I never did much analog design or bench work but I took all the courses going on 30 years ago.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 20, 2012, 07:14:01 AM
PW:

Yes thanks for reminding me that the "bounce up" is a form of negative feedback.  I am getting a bit rusty in general.  I never did much analog design or bench work but I took all the courses going on 30 years ago.

MileHigh

MH,

No problem, I knew exactly what you meant and your description was both intuitive and accurate.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 20, 2012, 05:09:08 PM
Tk,

okay, your last circuit diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/)
is not much different than mine, only that you connect the plus pole of the 9 Volt battery still
behind the shunt and I before the Rshunt resistor...

Okay, so the voltage on the Rshunt seems to matter...

Okay, so lets use your circuit from now on.

But in your circuit, when you have the pot tap at about the center there also can not
flow 200 mA !

At best about maybe 10 milliAmps as the 9 Volt battery then sees at maximum 5 Kohm resistance
if you don´t turn the knob on the pot almost to one of the ends... but as you said,
it needs -4 Volts it surely is in the center. so no low resistance for the 9 Volts battery...

ALso this Q1 and Q2 is mostly a multivibrator circuit in selfrunning mode (without LRC units, just the wire lenghts),
so you would only draw mainly AC from the 9 Volt battery.

Maybe you can show just the voltage on your 10R to 50R Ohm pre-resistor, then you will probably see,
that there is not flowing 200 mA !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 20, 2012, 07:17:37 PM
Tk,

okay, your last circuit diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/)
is not much different than mine, only that you connect the plus pole of the 9 Volt battery still
behind the shunt and I before the Rshunt resistor...
I guess there is still some misunderstanding going on. My corrected diagram (sorry about the wire colors in the video, it's been corrected now) has the battery polarity inverted from your diagram. This seems like a big difference to me... and I'm fully responsible for the error in your first diagram, because of my confusion of the battery wire color coding.  But that's fixed now, as soon as I was aware of it. So the battery in my circuit is completely floating, yours has a connection to ground, and my circuit has the battery _positive_ connected to the "FG minus" point of the circuit, as noted. These may be small differences on paper but they make a "big difference" in the circuit.

Quote

Okay, so the voltage on the Rshunt seems to matter...

Okay, so lets use your circuit from now on.

But in your circuit, when you have the pot tap at about the center there also can not
flow 200 mA !
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But I thought further posts should have cleared this point up. The oscillations START at a relatively centered pot position, with about 12-14 mA indicated on the Hickok meter in series with the 10R inline resistor. As the pot is turned more toward the END of its travel, the oscillation amplitude increases and the current indicated increases, until _with the depleted battery of 7.9 volts AND the 10R series resistance AND the pot turned _all the way to one end_... the most "positive" end of the pot--- the oscillations reach a nice strong amplitude and the series meter reads around 100 mA. If I use a fresh battery or an external power supply, I can indeed reach 200 or even 350 mA by using more voltage from the potentiometer's slider. The position of the slider, hence the overall resistance, hence the current seen by any meters or CVRs,  will of course depend on the voltage applied across the potentiometer's end terminals.  Ohm's law still works, don't worry. It works especially well if you use the right numbers as input data.
I don't think I ever said anything about there being 200 mA with the pot centered, as you are assuming. If I did, I misspoke or perhaps you misunderstood. If you point out where I said it, I'll correct it right away.
This is not the case... unless you want to apply more voltage across the pot.

Quote

At best about maybe 10 milliAmps as the 9 Volt battery then sees at maximum 5 Kohm resistance
if you don´t turn the knob on the pot almost to one of the ends... but as you said,
it needs -4 Volts it surely is in the center. so no low resistance for the 9 Volts battery...
Once again.... as the pot setting is turned towards the positive side.... the _indicated_ voltage it is putting out goes more and more negative until it reaches a true -4 volts and the oscillations begin with about 14 mA from the bias battery. Now... further turning of the pot doesn't cause an APPARENT increase in the voltage to more than -4 volts... because the mosfets are now turning ON so the voltage stays LOW, and further "voltage increases" on the pot setting only send more _current_ into the system. If you set the pot at some value near the end, where you still read -4 volts on the oscilloscope channel or a simple voltmeter, and you have that big current flow like 100 mA.... and then you unhook the pot wiper from the main circuit and measure the open circuit voltage at the pot wiper... it will be much more negative than -4 volts. So with the pot IN CIRCUIT, you might read -4 volts at the wiper and the pot might be near the center, when the oscillations just barely start. But as you turn the pot to increase the amplitude of the oscillations, the _indicated_ voltage at the wiper, in-circuit, will stay at that "voltage floor" and will remain there _even when the pot is fully turned_ and you know you are applying the full 9v battery voltage, or that of whatever power supply you have there instead.
This is a "voltage drop" due to a heavy (low resistance) load being placed on the battery or other bias power supply like the FG output. My Interstate F43 FG will do 40 volts p-p into 50 Ohms, but even it is drawn down to only -4 volts _indicated_ when it should be putting out -20 volts... and if it's disconnected, at the same knob settings, it will read -20 volts.
Quote
ALso this Q1 and Q2 is mostly a multivibrator circuit in selfrunning mode (without LRC units, just the wire lenghts),
so you would only draw mainly AC from the 9 Volt battery.
I am afraid I don't know how to draw AC from a DC battery. So I suppose I am failing to understand just what you mean. The polarity of the current coming from the battery never reverses, at least I don't think it does. I'll check it again later, perhaps on a video, if I have time.
A rising and falling voltage or current waveform doesn't indicate "AC" unless the _polarity_ actually reverses at some point in the cycle. It's a common error though; I've even had to explain it to working electrical engineers. An "AC" or RF ripple on top of a large DC offset or constant voltage does not add up to "alternating current" as we normally think of AC, which means a net current flow in one direction, followed by net current flow in the other direction, in a repeating cycle. The ripple actually means that the _magnitude_ of the current, always flowing in the same direction, varies regularly at the "AC" or RF frequency. Think of it as a pulsating garden sprinkler. Even though the water is flowing strongly, then off, then flowing strongly again, then off, and so on... the water never flows back into the hose.

Quote


Maybe you can show just the voltage on your 10R to 50R Ohm pre-resistor, then you will probably see,
that there is not flowing 200 mA !

Regards, Stefan.

I am very sorry but I still don't think we are communicating, somehow. You still seem to be basing all your calculations on the assumption that the pot is centered when the 200 mA is flowing... and of course with 9v across the pot that can't be right. However your assumption is wrong: the pot isn't centered when that current flows, especially not with an almost-dead 9v battery, and with the depleted battery and the 10R series resistor, I can only get about 100mA max anyway. The 200 mA figure is what _can_ be attained without pushing too far, but of course using more than the voltage of a depleted 9v battery. 350 mA can be attained as well if you like, by  using more voltage at the bias source, if you like to see a scope screen full of garbage distorted oscillations.

I have indeed looked at the voltage drop across the series 10R on the oscilloscope. If I did this right... it was late last night and I was pretty tired... the current flowing in this resistor is "always" in one direction --it is not AC. There is a ripple on top of the voltage drop corresponding to the oscillations, which can be seen at any point in the circuit.
The value of the voltage drop across the 10R (actually 10.3 ohms measured) indicates actually a bit _more_ current than is indicated on the Hickok meter -- but of course this is an "eyeball" reading of a small scope deflection viewed at high gain. I have also looked at a 0.3 ohm CVR in series with the negative output of the battery/pot system... and it also more or less agrees with the meter's reading. I'm glad I have that rugged Hickok meter in there, because I'm always pegging it against the 100 mA stop. The bias current is real, even if where it's going is still something of a mystery, and in the circuit as I have it wired, I don't think it can go through the main CVR so it wouldn't be taken into consideration by the NERDs as power input. But it is power input and should be so considered.

Please, if you have more questions, ask them and I'll try to answer clearly. And certainly, if you or anyone finds anything that seems to be a discrepancy, let me know so I can address the issue and correct my mistakes, or even, if necessary ... correct yours.

 8)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 21, 2012, 01:21:48 AM
Hi TK,
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/)

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/


are basically the same circuit, just you put the plus pole behind the Rshunt resistor and
I did put it before...

So the voltage drop at the shunt resistor seems to matter...

Just show us in a new video a scopeshot at your 10R - 50 R resistor
this will be interesting what current will be flowing there.

Please use a DC coupling on the scope so we can also see the DC current level.
and please show where the scope´s zero line is set and please show Volts per div.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 02:02:09 AM
Hi TK,
http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98075/)

http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/ (http://www.overunity.com/12182/testing-the-tk-tar-baby/dlattach/attach/98077/)


are basically the same circuit, just you put the plus pole behind the Rshunt resistor and
I did put it before...


Yes, I can see that now. Thanks... you are right, it's not as big a difference as I at first thought, but it does make a difference in the circuit's behaviour especially if there are probes hooked up here and there, I think.

Quote
So the voltage drop at the shunt resistor seems to matter...

Just show us in a new video a scopeshot at your 10R - 50 R resistor
this will be interesting what current will be flowing there.


I've just calibrated my Hickok meter (see video and photo below) against a known resistance using a regulated power supply and Ohm's Law. I've made a video illustrating the calibration, and it also shows the use of the oscilloscope to make a current reading in the calibration system... just to prove that one doesn't need numbers in boxes to make reasonably precise current readings on an analog scope. The test is a tough one too: I use a 0.3 ohm CVR and the scope is set to 0.005 volts per division, and less than one full division is used for the reading.... and I get within 5 percent of the true value. Twice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPVOkDQsXfs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPVOkDQsXfs)

Next, I'll do the demonstration you asked for, using both the Hickok and the scope across the 10R as a CVR. I've got a fresh 9volt battery too.

Quote
Please use a DC coupling on the scope so we can also see the DC current level.
and please show where the scope´s zero line is set and please show Volts per div.


Don't I always? How would it be possible to read a current value from the scope if I didn't do these things? Never mind, it was a rhetorical question.

(I think someone may have told you that I don't show quantitative measurements on my scope... but in fact I do, almost always. Sometimes I leave out the timebase setting, but I always try to show the coupling, the channel vertical amplifier settings, the probe attenuation, how the scope is triggered, and where the zero baseline is, and I do try to illuminate the graticle so the divisions can be seen. Things move fast in my videos; I encourage liberal use of the pause and rewind buttons.)

Quote
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

You're quite welcome.
-TK
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 04:12:04 AM
Quantitative scoposcopy and Tar Baby's Bias Current

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 06:15:21 AM
Tar Baby and the Coup de Grace 

(main CVR measurement)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTcGFYqbF8
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 06:31:38 AM
Waveform comparisons.

Figure 1: The Ainslie paper 1, Figure 4 waveform shot. Note the "shunt" and the "battery" waveforms and their vertical gain settings.

Figure 2: The Tar Baby "shunt" (CVR) and battery waveforms, taken with DC bias drive as shown in the latest video posted above.

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 06:46:28 AM
Quote
This is the only example required to show the oscillation
waveform detail as this frequency and phase relationship is
seen to persist in all variations to the offset, the duty cycle and
the and the (sic) applied voltage at the source. The evidence is that
the oscillation will persist with the provision of a constantly
applied negative charge at Q1. There is a precise 180-degree
anti-phase relationship between RSHUNT and Battery voltages
that is self-reinforcing, extending as it does, for the full
duration of the cycle while the signal at the gate of Q1 is
negative. The significance of this is more fully described
under Discussion and the evidence is that current is not, in
fact, being discharged by the battery supply during this
oscillation phase.

-- from the Ainslie Paper 1, page 4.


May I please have the OverUnity Prize now?



Oh....wait..... I have not yet proven that my batteries do not discharge, have I.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 07:26:14 AM
Hi TK:

Very nice waveform clip.  You can see how it resembles the NERD waveforms and it does actually appear to look like that there is more power being returned to the battery.

I don't think you can make estimates of energy out and energy in just by multiplying out approximate total areas like you stated.  Just like you use RMS when you look at an AC voltage going into a load resistor you have to factor in the fact that you are multiplying two variables together.  So one variable is doing a "weighting" on the other variable.

For what it's worth the energy per "energy cycle" is:  (out or in to battery)

E(out of battery) = (for t=0 to t=<end of power out>) Integral [ i(t) * v(t) ] dt

The NERD team DSO is doing that calculation.

A few thoughts:

When you look at just a few cycles the amount of current flow out of the battery is going to be approximately equal to the amount of current flow in.  Just doing the crude "area integration by eyeballing it" it sure looks like that.  So if you did your old trick where you photograph the waveform and then print it out on your printer, and then carefully cut out the "current out" and "current in" sections" and then weigh them - they will weigh approximately the same.

The reason for this is deceptively simple.  The delta between current out and current in when you are looking at a microscopic part of the AC waveform is very small.  It's so small that as a result it is hidden in the "background noise."  Of course your analog meter or even the LEDs of DOOM should confirm that the batteries are actually discharging.

More to come, standard disclaimers apply.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 07:30:02 AM
It sure is quiet in here. Sort of like the stunned silence in a theater after some horribly moving and emotional movie has just ended.

At the time the photo of Tar Baby's traces was taken the load was at slightly over 51 degrees C. That's the temperature of the 250 mL of mineral oil that the resistors are submerged in. The specific heat of mineral oil is 1.67 Joules per gram per degree C, and the density is about 0.83 gm/mL. I don't know exactly what time I started, but let's say it took 100 minutes to get the oil from ambient at  22 C to the 51 degree point. So that's a 29 degree rise in 100 minutes.

Doing the math..... there are 250 ml x 0.83 gm/ml == 208 gm oil in there. So 208 x 1.67 x 29 == a little over 10,000 Joules to heat the oil, plus any losses through the insulation during that period. So it took at least 10,000 Joules and probably a little more. What's the average power? Since a Watt is One Joule PER second, we take the number of Joules and DIVIDE by the number of seconds to determine the Joules per second or Watts. 100 minutes is 6000 seconds. And 10,000 Joules / 6000 seconds is..... about 1.67 Watts average power, if I did the math right. No big deal, the oscillations easily pass that much power, obviously.


Or.... to "Do The Math"  the Ainslie way..... there are 5 A-H at 48 volts in my battery. That's 5 x 60 x 60 x 48 == 864,000 Joules. The test used... by her calculation method... since .... 10000 Joules per second x 100 minutes of the test period = 1,000,000 Joules...... in that test alone the battery capacity was far exceeded... and yet all the batteries still measure over 12 volts each.

Quote
So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Of course this is wrong, and she has admitted that this is wrong, but she still hasn't corrected it or retracted the claim that the test used more than the battery's capacity.

Therefore.... as far as I can tell... ALL my evidence that can be compared to Ainslie's evidence directly indicates that Tar Baby is just as much overunity as Ainslie's device, just as I have claimed all along.

Of course, since Ainslie has not shown a Dim Bulb test... or any of a lot of the other tests I've performed... those are not fair comparisons and shouldn't be considered. Right?

So just going by what she HAS shown in real data...... I'm showing the same things, and so the same conclusions should be drawn about both devices, based on what's been shown and fairly compared.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 08:32:12 AM
Hi TK:

(snip)

For what it's worth the energy per "energy cycle" is:  (out or in to battery)

E(out of battery) = (for t=0 to t=<end of power out>) Integral [ i(t) * v(t) ] dt

The NERD team DSO is doing that calculation.

(snip)

Oh yeah... I seem to recall some dude on YT trying to explain all that stuff, some years ago. Clearly over my head, so I just do Dim Bulb tests now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeIVSiEZDnc

But is that _really_ what the NERDs are doing with that DSO? I think they are dumping the data...some of it.... to the spreadsheet and using a home-grown numerical integration approximation on it. Certainly, what they are _showing_ on their scope traces is garbage multiplied by noise and integrated over nonsense. I've certainly never seen a properly-obtained power trace integral that looked like theirs. Plus they forgot to put the value of their shunt resistor into the calculations on the DSO.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 09:23:11 AM
TK:

When I look at the voltage bump on the batteries when the current is reversed it makes me think that that AC battery impedance test that PW suggested would be interesting.

Let's play Devil's advocate and assume that if you did the number crunching based on your scope traces that it would show "more energy being returned to the battery."  In other words, you have a SUCCESSFUL replication of the NERD circuit!!!

So let's assume that the LEDs of DOOM or your ammeter still show that the batteries are discharging.  So right there you have some contradictory data.

PW suggested using a sine wave at a high frequency with voltage drops across resistors to determine the AC impedance.

I can suggest another test that might be useful.  If with your signal generator you could somehow inject a current pulse train that is positive going only (meaning back to the battery positive terminal) with similar timing characteristics to the reverse current (i.e.; back to the battery positive terminal) that you see on your scope trace it would be interesting to see the battery's response.  You could do this on a single battery only with very short wires to reduce inductance effects.

The desire would be to see how much that current pulse train raises the battery voltage every time it is hit with a short current pulse.  You can assume that most of this increase in battery voltage is due to the charging input resistance of the battery.  The delta-V component is therefore not "returned energy" but more akin to energy burned off inside the battery.  So right there that would allow you to attach a weighting factor to the apparent energy returned to the battery.

So perhaps between voltage swings due to wire inductance and voltage bumps due to the battery internal resistance you can start to get a clearer picture of what is actually going on.

A possible scenario is that when you factor out the "return voltage bump" effects due to wire inductance and battery input resistance then the picture of the energy dynamics will change.  Something like 100 units of energy flow out of the battery, and then it appears that 120 units of energy are returned to the battery.  But when you factor in what was said above, in reality only 80 units of energy are returned to the battery.

Even if there is a resistor inside the battery itself, it's still a resistor just like a resistor in the regular circuit and it represents lost energy.

Don't forget the standard disclaimers!  lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
@MH:
What you are describing is an interesting test.... one that should be done by anyone who claims that their batteries aren't discharging while usefully powering a load. Wouldn't it be nice if the CLAIMANT performed these comprehensive tests, before attempting to rewrite some of the basic laws of physics?

Besides, I've seen nothing in the behaviour of this circuit that leads me to believe for an instant that the batteries aren't discharging at a normal rate for the current they are sourcing.

Oh.... sure.... if I believed that a 12 volt battery is fully charged as long as its no-load voltage is over 12 volts, or if I believed that it was impossible to reach current spikes of 8 amps in the negative direction without _something_ unusual happening, or if I believed that One Joule is One Watt Per Second (the terms are interchangeable according to RA), or if I believed without question anything that a digital instrument tells me...... then things might be different.

I've given a lot here. A ten minute video takes at least an hour or more: setup, a basic check to make sure the demo will actually work, one or two false starts, an interruption by the dog, the actual demo, downloading from the camera, converting from the 1 GB high-res file into something that will upload to YT in a reasonable amount of time, the actual upload, reviewing to make sure it's legible, writing the description, posting a link.... all that takes time. Then there's the driving around getting parts, the time spent shopping, the actual _money_ spent on parts and supplies, the lost time from my actual paid job.....

I'm starting to want something back.

People have suggested all kinds of things I "should" or could do to test various aspects of the behaviour of Tar Baby..... just as if I were some OVERUNITY claimant who is trying to apply for a monetary prize and needs vetting. And I've performed and reported on many or even most of these suggested tests. But let's not forget something here: My only claim is that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects. If NERD, meaning RA, hasn't shown the results of some suggested test, why should I have to do so?

Much of what I've done should in fact have been totally unnecessary, but I had to do it because "some people" don't understand analog scopes, much less digital ones. They don't understand basic power measurements or the mathematics involved, they don't understand the basics of scientific experimentation, and worst of all they think that they know enough that they don't need to know anything new. Therefore I have had to establish "credibility" for my instrumentation and methodology, things which normally would not need doing.... and something, strangely, that has NOT been done by the NERDs.

All evidence... from their video demo and their "papers"... indicate just the opposite: they are not careful about facts, they make many errors in concepts and execution, and they clearly do not use their equipment properly or to full advantage. SO what am I doing proving MY credibility and instrument capability? This is the FIRST thing that should have been insisted upon in the case of the RA claims: they MUST correct all the obvious mistakes, typos, misrepresentations, incorrect schematics, blown mosfets, and get rid of the "theoretical" distracting musings. FIRST.

Show that the basic data leading to the claim is at least correct and properly obtained. THEN. Show a basic understanding of power, energy, and instrumental measures of the same. At that point, an unusual claim might deserve to be taken seriously and examined further.

But a mishmash of mistakes, errors, scoposcopy, instrument abuse, abuse of persons investigating the claims, and bloviating about some "papers" full of errors and a "theory" that makes no mathematical predictions at all..... this does not even deserve a second glance. Not UNTIL the claimant actually produces the needed evidence: batteries that will power a light bulb for just as long AFTER they have been heating up a load for some time, as they would BEFORE doing that work.

In other words, I want something back: I want to see the NERDs testing their claims, correctly and comprehensively, and SOON. I've even done their home work for them. I've shown that they do not need a FG or even a 555 timer to make the negative-going bias signal that produces the "lowheat" mode of operation.

Either that, or I want to see them formally drop their claim of overunity performance.

Actually, it appears that RA has backed off from this position: lately she claims that she ISN'T claiming OU performance at all... they only "measured" OU performance. Of course this is more prevarication from RA. They most certainly have been claiming OU and COP exceeding infinity. But if they want to officially retract those claims and stop applying for prizes and awards.... then they obviously will no longer be under the OBLIGATION to prove what they claim.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 03:25:25 PM
Well done on the wave forms TK.

Any idea why the difference in AC "battery" voltage?, i.e. 70Vpp (yours) vs. over 200Vpp (RA)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 03:30:06 PM
By the way...if there is anyone else out there doing this.... that potentiometer in the gate bias battery (or powersupply) circuit should be a 2 Watt or better pot.

The cheapo 1/2 Watt carbon film pots are too easy to damage. Last night after shooting the last demo I just let the thing run, at whatever current I had it set, 150 mA or something on the Hickok, to heat the load. After half an hour or so I looked over and the current had dropped to 30 mA or so, and no adjustment of the Power Supply proper (not the pot) could get it back--it was very unstable. So I moved the pot slightly and then readjusted the PS... stability reestablished and high current again. What happened was that the power through the pot finally burned another little spot in the resistance layer right where the slider was, and so the pot couldn't make good contact there any more. Moving the slider a little bit to an unburned location, then readjusting the input voltage to reestablish the correct current worked to reestablish stability... for a while.

So use a 2-watt pot here, of good quality. They are a lot more expensive than the generic Chinese 1/2 watt pots that are everywhere, but they will last a lot longer in this kind of service.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
Well done on the wave forms TK.

Any idea why the difference in AC "battery" voltage?, i.e. 70Vpp (yours) vs. over 200Vpp (RA)
Thanks.

Could it have something to do with the fact that they are using a 72 volt (or 60 volt) battery pack and I am using a 48 volt one? Or perhaps that the bandwidth of their scope far exceeds that of mine? Or that they probably still have more lead inductance, especially inter-battery, than I do? Or the fact that I am using a limited bias supply voltage, and they have their FG cranked all the way to the negative offset stop? (Oscillation amplitude depends on bias current in this setup, as I have shown several times.)

I think all these things combine to account for that particular difference.

More importantly, though.... look at the current trace amplitudes in the TB and NERD. What accounts for the strong _similarities_ of the amplitudes here? The slight difference in waveshape can be a result of probe compensation and bandwidth. Wouldn't you like to see NERD and TarBaby tested side-by-side with the same instrumentation?

Look very carefully at the ascending slope of Tar Baby's current trace. You can even see the little "knee" there, right where NERD shows a fast spike. The bandwidth of the HP180 isn't fast enough to catch that little spike... but the knee is there and of course with a higher bw scope we'd surely see that same little spike. (At least I think I can see the knee there ... it shows up better at higher drives and timebase settings.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
Do you think that high-amplitude oscillations on the battery trace are going to be necessary for the NERD Effect to occur? If so... then there is no hope of success with a three-battery test, as you had been discussing with RA earlier.

But their Paper 2, Figure 8 shows oscillations on the battery trace with a battery evidently at 60 volts... and only a 100 volt p-p amplitude. This variable is strongly dependent on the bias current which in the NERD case will be determined by the FG's exact offset setting. At higher drives the waveform becomes increasingly distorted, so it is possible that they turned down the drive to get cleaner looking waveforms in that figure.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 04:08:15 PM
Do you think that high-amplitude oscillations on the battery trace are going to be necessary for the NERD Effect to occur? If so... then there is no hope of success with a three-battery test, as you had been discussing with RA earlier.

No. All you need is to show the two wave form traces as you have, and show their product p(t) as negative, all the while heating the load.

You're nearly there. Once you get use of the Tek scope back and show that negative power, you'll be able to claim your prize too.  :P
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 04:29:09 PM
No. All you need is to show the two wave form traces as you have, and show their product p(t) as negative, all the while heating the load.

You're nearly there. Once you get use of the Tek scope back and show that negative power, you'll be able to claim your prize too.  :P

But wait... is this going to be another story of needing to "replicate" an error in order to prove a point? That is, when I at first used a tight layout with mosfets mounted on very short leads right at the motherboard, and twisted pairs to connect the external components like the load, I got no oscillations, apparently. It was only when I read humbugger's report on OUR, combined with a comment from fuzzy, that I decided to "sloppify" the layout. Then I got the feedback, no problem.

So... if I do the things that I consider proper in making a power measurement (probes deskewed and calibrated, using proper sampling intervals and proper integral forms and constants, minimal inductance in leads, and so forth.... will it even be possible to show that negative power?

I don't recall just now exactly what changes you made in the sim to go from the "negative power calculation" mode to the more correct mode.

As far as I'm concerned the negative power measurement that the NERDs reported is an instrumental artefact, until THEY demonstrate otherwise. It's clear from the scope shots that they didn't do it right, and I have no idea what they did with the spreadsheet data to come up with their cited figures.

But of course I'll try it, when I have a chance.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 04:35:16 PM
TK and Poynt:

Looking good!

TK, your comments are well understood.

Negative computed power while the load resistor is producing heat followed by a battery dim-bulb test would be 100% conclusive.  No need for the detailed energy audit trail.

TK can then claim another "Mylow Buster" prize!  And of course we know he is the original Mylow buster!  <cue the Star Wars music..... again!>

Now everybody's heard about a NERD!

MileHigh


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 04:53:20 PM
TK,

I am fairly certain that if you just take those two traces and multiply them with the Tek math function, you will show a negative VV. Then you're pretty much done. ;) You'll have replicated most if not all the major points raised by Rosemary to equal their claim.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 05:07:45 PM
Preparing for the laborious process of manual multiplication and integration..... I got lucky and the scope shot was "perfectly" aligned horizontally and vertically in the camera frame !!

So I used mtPaint to overlay a rectangular grid on the traces, put in some reference lines, and started to identify time-synchronous values on each trace for multiplication and plotting in a spreadsheet.

This will take a while to complete, obviously, and I'll probably double the time resolution from what I show here, and I'll probably be able to do two complete cycles before I fkn freak out completely and go blind or something.

Horizontal purple line is the zero line for the top, current, trace and is the battery voltage for the bottom trace (the zero level is below the image frame), and the top is at 2 volts/div and the bottom is at 20 volts/div. The vertical grid is aligned fairly well with the graticle marks on the screen and is spaced at as close to double the screen marks as I could get it, so 10 volts per overlay grid division on the bottom trace and 1 volt per overlay grid division on the top trace.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 05:22:28 PM
TK,

Don't waste your time doing the integration. Most of Rosemary's shots are of an averaged (MEAN) p(t) of the product of those two traces. See the attached as a good example.

Just multiply x number of fine points and take the average. If the result is a significant negative number, you're done. In the attached example (same shot from the paper), the MEAN p(t) is -73.4VV.

Also, remember that you are multiplying DC values, not just the relative p-p values. I mention this, even though I know you are aware of this, because your scope shot does not show the zero line for the "battery" trace.

Happy crunching ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 05:22:31 PM
TK,

You have already spent a lot of time and effort on this, and I for one greatly appreciate it. 

But, if I could trouble you for one more measurement:

With the circuit oscillating similarly, please post a scope shot similar to your #490 post timebase and with both vertical channels set as you did for Vbat, but with the scope probes on opposing ends of the load resistor.  I would like to see just how much Vdrop there is at both DC, and more particularly, at AC.  This should provide us with some idea of the battery AC impedance at Fosc.

If you need to get to that "real work", I will understand.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 05:45:47 PM
@PW: Let's go for 100 mA bias current. This keeps it on the Hickok meter, and it makes nicely formed oscillations, and more importantly it gives me a stable and manageable 190-200 mA on the inline DMM which seems to reflect what the load is getting fairly accurately as far as I can tell so far. This produces easily measurable heat and fairly rapid battery depletion with my 5 A-H batteries, and should give manageable run times with NERD's batteries too... ten times longer but still manageable.

So with a fresh 9v, or with a regulated 12 volts input to the Voltage Inverter/Clock, or some other source... it seems that the 10R series resistor is minimum and 50R is a max... maybe I should put a nice wirewound 100R precision pot in there instead of the fixed series resistor.

TK,

I remain a bit puzzled regarding more current measured from Vbatt than is measured at the bias battery.  At DC, they should be the same.  Possibly the assymetrial/distorted AC is being detected in the Ibat measurement and therefore inidicating a higher Ibat.

You might consider finding a convenient way to kill the oscillations like placing a ceramic cap across the gate/source, gate/drain or drain/source.  I am not sure what it will take to stop the oscillations, but you could then measure the currents with the circuit oscillating and then kill the oscillations to get measurements of the DC quiescent conditions.

An alternative would be to place a fairly large cap across the terminals of the Ibat meter to temporarily bypass AC at that meter and see if the indicated current drops to something closer to Ibias.

PW


Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 06:13:20 PM
TK,

Don't waste your time doing the integration. Most of Rosemary's shots are of an averaged (MEAN) p(t) of the product of those two traces. See the attached as a good example.

Just multiply x number of fine points and take the average. If the result is a significant negative number, you're done. In the attached example (same shot from the paper), the MEAN p(t) is -73.4VV.

Also, remember that you are multiplying DC values, not just the relative p-p values. I mention this, even though I know you are aware of this, because your scope shot does not show the zero line for the "battery" trace.

Happy crunching ;)

Actually the scope shot does show the zero trace, it just didn't make it into the crop above.

Here are the actual data points I'll be using for the computation. I've increased the vertical overlay gridlines and used 4 complete cycles. The vertical overlay gridlines have 7.5 lines per screen major division. So the scale becomes as follows: top trace, the CVR, is 2 V/div on the screen so it's 0.267 volts per gridline. The bottom trace, the battery voltage, is at 20 v/div on the screen so it's at 2.67 volts per gridline. The zero marker is shown for the top trace and the 48 volt DC battery level is shown for the bottom trace.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 06:19:11 PM
TK,

You have already spent a lot of time and effort on this, and I for one greatly appreciate it. 

But, if I could trouble you for one more measurement:

With the circuit oscillating similarly, please post a scope shot similar to your #490 post timebase and with both vertical channels set as you did for Vbat, but with the scope probes on opposing ends of the load resistor.  I would like to see just how much Vdrop there is at both DC, and more particularly, at AC.  This should provide us with some idea of the battery AC impedance at Fosc.

If you need to get to that "real work", I will understand.

PW

The HP scope does not have isolated ground references nor do I have a differential voltage probe ... so if I'm following you correctly, I can't make that measurement across the load with probes back-to-back.

Or do you mean one probe on one end of the load, one probe on the other end, and both reference leads to the normal circuit ground point? That I can do, of course. But that's equivalent to what we've been calling "battery" trace for the one probe and the "common mosfet drain" trace for the other probe, isn't it?

Later... I have to get the dogs herded to the vet for annual vaccinations this afternoon.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 06:33:32 PM
The HP scope does not have isolated ground references nor do I have a differential voltage probe ... so if I'm following you correctly, I can't make that measurement across the load with probes back-to-back.

Or do you mean one probe on one end of the load, one probe on the other end, and both reference leads to the normal circuit ground point? That I can do, of course. But that's equivalent to what we've been calling "battery" trace for the one probe and the "common mosfet drain" trace for the other probe, isn't it?

Later... I have to get the dogs herded to the vet for annual vaccinations this afternoon.

TK,

Yes, I meant probe grounds to batt- and the probe tips at opposing ends of the load resistor.  And yes, absent any interconnect inductance, this would be similar to Vbatt versus Vdrain.  Your scope shot from post 490 was really clean, and a similar shot across the load resistor would be telling.

Dogs?  (as in more than one?)

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 06:58:21 PM
TK:

I understand that you can't do everything and suggestions are coming at you from all angles.  So I have another "make work" suggestion for you but don't let me break your stride.

The suggestion is for getting a more accurate manual integral calculation.  I am going to give you an image-processing-based solution assuming that you may have some software.  Also, I am going to give you a more basic way of doing it also.  Here goes....

You take what you consider your best picture of your scope display.  It would be preferable to have a pic with a faster time base showing one or two complete cycles, but the picture you are working with now will also work.  My discussion will be based on a single cycle, but you may prefer to do it with two cycles.

You take your image and then you crop out a single cycle.   Then you do a horizontal image stretching so that it has the same aspect ratio as an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper in landscape mode.

Now for some image processing software tricks.  You invert the image so the trace is dark and the background light.  [I am adding one more IP step from the original posting:]  Then run a low-pass filter to soften the image to give it a "slightly out of focus" look.  You are doing this step to make the next step, the image thresholding "cleaner."

Then you run image thresholding such that all pixels above a certain intensity are white and all pixels below a certain intensity are black.   So at this point you should have a thick solid black line that represents the waveform on a white background.  The line will not be clean may have some jagged edges, etc.

Then you run a few passes of an erosion filter and you erode the thick black line away until it becomes a thin black line.  Then you superimpose a grid on top of that line so that you can make easy measurements.   Finally you print that out in landscape mode on your printer.

I assume you can see the logic here.  You stretch out the waveform so that you can extract more information from the more gradual slopes.  You are doing a kind of interpolation.

Without the image processing functions you could pretty much do the same thing manually.  Just invert the image then crop and stretch so that your full cycle will print nicely in landscape mode.  You might want to increase the contrast in the image or change the gamma of the image.

Then you print out a stretched and fuzzy waveform, and you just do the "image processing" by eye.  You take your pen and ruler (or curve fitting template) and draw a nice line down the center of the fuzzy waveform.

Either way, your manual crunching should be easier and more accurate, and obviously you can now reduce the delta-t and get more precision.

Another make-work project as part of the "New Deal" to invoke closure....

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 07:24:23 PM
@MH: You must be crazy.   8)

Results for the first two cycles. I measured the distances off the screen at high magnification with a divider from my drafting kit. Then I used the yellow scale on the left to count the divider's width in gridlines. There are 7.5 gridlines per scope screen vertical division. The rest is just math.

ETA: IMPORTANT:
The first spreadsheet shot I posted had a formula error and the means weren't correct. Here is the correct mean calculation for the first two full cycles.
Sorry if there was any confusion.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 07:32:23 PM
TK,

Yes, I meant probe grounds to batt- and the probe tips at opposing ends of the load resistor.  And yes, absent any interconnect inductance, this would be similar to Vbatt versus Vdrain.  Your scope shot from post 490 was really clean, and a similar shot across the load resistor would be telling.

Dogs?  (as in more than one?)

PW

Maggie, Murphy, and Mommadog. Momma is my housemate's old bitch, Murphy is another rescue from the park who has been here about a month now.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 07:35:30 PM
May I please have my Overunity Prize now?

 :-* :-*
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 07:42:00 PM
TK:

I will try to chill.   ;D

Oh my gawd!!!  Call Nature magazine!  Ring up the New York Times!  World saved!!!!!!  The oscilloscope can't lie!!!

Rosie, can I get licensing rights for North and South America?  I already have a factory I swear.  The robots are being programmed as we speak.  This is the Dawning of the Age of Zip-zip-ons!!!  Zip-zip-ons!!!  Zip-onn-onn-onns!!!   :P

MileHigh
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: MileHigh on April 21, 2012, 07:46:34 PM
Quote
May I please have my Overunity Prize now?

Woo-hoo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M&ob=av2n
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 07:47:26 PM
TK,

Don't waste your time doing the integration. Most of Rosemary's shots are of an averaged (MEAN) p(t) of the product of those two traces. See the attached as a good example.

Just multiply x number of fine points and take the average. If the result is a significant negative number, you're done. In the attached example (same shot from the paper), the MEAN p(t) is -73.4VV.

Also, remember that you are multiplying DC values, not just the relative p-p values. I mention this, even though I know you are aware of this, because your scope shot does not show the zero line for the "battery" trace.

Happy crunching ;)

Don't forget that in the NERD scope shots, they have NOT divided the CVR voltages by the value of the resistor. So that MEAN p(t) figure of -73.4 VV should actually be (-73.4)/0.25  == -293.6 Watts. I have a feeling that even the NERDs couldn't believe that value.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 08:03:28 PM
I know about the 0.25 division TK ;) I've been at this for quite some time.

I didn't feel it was necessary to mention; negative 74W is sufficient enough negative to see that it is negative.  :o

Well done on your -43W. Congratulations!. How are we going to divy the prize between you and Rosemary then? Maybe based on the ratio of negative powers?  :P
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 08:28:10 PM
I know about the 0.25 division TK ;) I've been at this for quite some time.

I didn't feel it was necessary to mention; negative 74W is sufficient enough negative to see that it is negative.  :o

Well done on your -43W. Congratulations!. How are we going to divy the prize between you and Rosemary then? Maybe based on the ratio of negative powers?  :P

PLEASE NOTE: that first spreadsheet shot I posted had a formula error. The means weren't calculating correctly. This one showing the results from the first two cycles should be correct... I hope.

No, I get the whole prize, since I'm ready to ship off to an independent tester NOW.

Oh... wait.... my batteries don't pass the Dim Bulb test. Boogers.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 21, 2012, 08:36:36 PM
TK,

At the very least, you deserve a beverage of your choosing and a lizard treat for every dog!!

You must never rest.

(I would still like to see that 'scope shot across the load if and when you can find the time later on)

Well done!

PW

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 08:47:31 PM
What do you mean by "cycle 1" and "cycle 2"?

Aren't you just adding up ALL the powers (from all the sampled cycles) and taking an average?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 08:56:38 PM
OK... just to review.

I've shown a calibration against a known measured resistance and Ohm's Law of the current measuring instruments and the oscilloscope "eyeball" method, and the scope method is within 5 percent of the true Ohm's Law value based on voltage and resistance.

I've shown that the TarBaby CVR and battery voltage traces look exceedingly similar to the NERD traces at the same magnification.

I've then done quantitative measurements on the photo of the traces to determine precise voltage values at 18 regularly timed points per cycle, over two full cycles.

I've used a spreadsheet to perform the multiplication point-by-point of those current and voltage values.

I've registered a negative mean power of over 100 Watts over the oscillation waveform.



And I've shown that my batteries do discharge, and I'll be repeating that test again later today, since now I have a full sequence: batteries used for many days testing and heating load, same batteries at the end of testing used to make the power computations, and then finally the Dim Bulb test against the two set-asides. If I have enough bulbs, that is.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 08:59:54 PM
What do you mean by "cycle 1" and "cycle 2"?

Aren't you just adding up ALL the powers (from all the sampled cycles) and taking an average?

I show four complete cycles of the waveform. There are 18 data points per cycle, roughly. Since I haven't yet entered all the points into the spreadsheet, I'm reporting results as they appear. The overall mean is of course the mean of all 36 so-far entered points, or the mean of the two cycle means that are on the spreadsheet shots. I'm happy to call it negative 100 Watts, since there are obviously sampling errors (of less than 5 percent.)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 09:03:23 PM
I did the average of what you had selected for all data points.

Average power = -110.56W

This is over 4 complete cycles. Usually, its good to do at least 10 cycles, but I think we see a trend here. ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 21, 2012, 10:50:49 PM
You know that the rationalization and justification and name calling and aspersion-casting against me, my methodology, and my equipment is all about to begin, don't you?

That's one reason why I drew the process out in such detail. I don't think there is any room in what I've shown for mysterious manipulations or faked data. I've given enough excruciating detail at every stage of the process that even an intelligent eighth-grader (who paid attention in math class) could reproduce it for herself, given a good oscilloscope and a handful of magic mosfets.


Speaking of which..... there are the IRF830s yet to try. Any bets as to the "OU" outcome using those much less magic mosfets?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: poynt99 on April 21, 2012, 11:36:17 PM
Ah, I thought you were using the 830's.  :)

Well with the 830's, I suspect all will be very similar, except your Fo will go up between 2x to 4x.

Re. Rosemary, I think she's busy getting her tests together. Don't be surprised if you see a continuous oscillation version with a floating VGS bias.  ;)
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: hartiberlin on April 22, 2012, 03:02:35 AM
Quantitative scoposcopy and Tar Baby's Bias Current

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Qvzumhhk)

Ahhh the current flows the opposite direction of what I thought it would flow alike...


Okay, I see, the DC current flow through the 10.3 Ohm resistor is from the main battery through Q2 back to the main battery ground.....
I thought this current would come from the 9 Volts battery, but this is not the case...!

Then just try to put a 100 nF cap in series, so it blocks the DC current and will only pass the AC.
ripple.
The 9 Volts battery should then not be discharged so fast...

Will it then still oscillate ?

The other new postings I have to catch up next week.

Regards; Stefan.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 03:21:19 AM
Ah, I thought you were using the 830's.  :)

Well with the 830's, I suspect all will be very similar, except your Fo will go up between 2x to 4x.

Re. Rosemary, I think she's busy getting her tests together. Don't be surprised if you see a continuous oscillation version with a floating VGS bias.  ;)

No... what would have been the point of that? Another "surprise"? I haven't used the 830as since that video. I want it to be impossible for anyone to deny that Tar Baby  is similar to NERD in all significant respects. I am even prepared to mount it on a piece of white pegboard if necessary. I draw the line at the clipleads to connect the mosfets, though.

Actually that _would_ surprise me very much. I still don't think she'll be showing any tests. Remember her conditions? She has to get two "academics" to agree to referee, and she won't be accepting anyone who hasn't read and in some sense agreed with her "papers". Do you know anyone with the requisite electronics knowledge who might fit into those categories? If they disagree with her they are incompetent idiots. We've seen that response from her how many times now?
In other words, not until a blue moon falls on the twelfth of Never will we see real tests from the poser.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 03:34:12 AM
TK,

Is your circuit "similar" or does it just "relate" to it?


PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 03:35:30 AM
Ahhh the current flows the opposite direction of what I thought it would flow alike...


Okay, I see, the DC current flow through the 10.3 Ohm resistor is from the main battery through Q2 back to the main battery ground.....
I thought this current would come from the 9 Volts battery, but this is not the case...!

Then just try to put a 100 nF cap in series, so it blocks the DC current and will only pass the AC.
ripple.
The 9 Volts battery should then not be discharged so fast...

Will it then still oscillate ?

The other new postings I have to catch up next week.

Regards; Stefan.

I think I  must still not be understanding you.

The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_  and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense. 
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.

So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.

So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 03:38:42 AM
TK,

Is your circuit "similar" or does it just "relate" to it?


PW
That's right, and I'm not claiming similarity, I'm just claiming to have _measured_ similarity.

 8)


(By the way I've made a new video and I think it shows the scope traces you wanted to see. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMthOsvbVU
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 03:41:45 AM
I think I  must still not be understanding you.

The "conventional" current, the one that works with calculations and right-hand-rules and all of that, is (thanks to Benjamin Franklin) assigned to be "out" of the positive pole of the source, around the circuit, and "into" the negative pole of the source.
Of course now that we understand things a bit better than Franklin or even Faraday, we know that what really happens is that _electrons_ carrying their negative charges bump into other electrons which bump into other electrons and so the _charge_ is transferred along the conductor from the Negative polarity to the Positive polarity. The electrons themselves bump along rather leisurely, but the _charge_  and whatever signal or power carried by it transfers at the speed of light in the conductor.
So in this video when I am describing the "conventional" and "anti-conventional" current directions, I am referring to the convention that Ben Franklin left us with, so that all the calculations make sense. 
It doesn't really matter, it's just a matter of sign, and so the convention remains with us and continues to confuse freshman EE students every September.

So I'm not sure what you are meaning about the current direction, and I'm still not clear on your use of "AC". Where is the AC in the circuit from the 9v battery (or power supply) to the gate input? It's all DC with a slight ripple on top. If I put a cap in there, nothing will get through, will it? The only place I see true AC is across the CVR... that is, in the main circuit itself when it is oscillating strongly.

So I suppose I'm still not following your meaning.

TK,

I believe Stefan is thinking that by placing a cap in series with the 9volt bias source, the 9volt battery will not have to provide a DC current and therefore not discharge.

I believe the correct answer to his question is, "no".  The source leg of Q2 needs both a negative voltage AND a DC path back to the battery negative (or the CSR).

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 03:48:45 AM
A data point:

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 04:02:06 AM
Are you finished now TK?  Or are you still doing that battery discharge number?

Let me know when I'm allowed to comment.  Or do you prefer it that we leave this 'gossip' untrammeled by the input of some real science?

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 04:45:44 AM
TK,

Even if you figure in the < 1.5 watts from the Ibias source, you're still looking good.

Thanks for the video.  I forgot about how your load is arranged making it difficult to probe right at the load.  It looks like your dropping about 25VAC across the load, correct?  It also appears that the phase is shifted about 90 to 100 degrees between the traces.  Do you agree?  Is this a reliable phase measurement or a possible triggering artifact? (it looked well triggered to me).   

I wonder what would happen to the energy calculations (and the oscillation) if you were to place a cap suitable for high frequency across the battery connections at your board so that only DC is indicated at the battery terminals.

It looks like your Ibias and Ibattery ammeters are in much closer agreement than before.

Have you managed to get anything else done?  Did the pups get their shots today?

PW

 

 





   
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 04:55:12 AM
I did the average of what you had selected for all data points.

Average power = -110.56W

This is over 4 complete cycles. Usually, its good to do at least 10 cycles, but I think we see a trend here. ;)
I didn't get quite that much. Perhaps we measured differently or I made an error somewhere, since the first two cycle means agree with yours, but my overall mean is a bit lower. Still solidly negative though.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 04:58:50 AM
Are you finished now TK?  Or are you still doing that battery discharge number?

Let me know when I'm allowed to comment.  Or do you prefer it that we leave this 'gossip' untrammeled by the input of some real science?

Rosie Pose

You betray your attitude problem in two simple sentences. You cannot post here without insulting or denigrating something or somebody, and you have no possibility of understanding what's presented here, so you will deny its reality and its validity.

You have nothing of value to contribute here UNLESS and UNTIL you show your own testing.

And no, I am far from finished. In fact, I am just beginning.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:15:18 AM
TK,

Even if you figure in the < 1.5 watts from the Ibias source, you're still looking good.

Thanks for the video.  I forgot about how your load is arranged making it difficult to probe right at the load.  It looks like your dropping about 25VAC across the load, correct?  It also appears that the phase is shifted about 90 to 100 degrees between the traces.  Do you agree?  Is this a reliable phase measurement or a possible triggering artifact? (it looked well triggered to me).   

No, I don't see that phase shift _now_. I see a tiny one of just a few degrees that might be artefact. I realize now that in the video I was triggering on the wrong channel and so I think that shift in the video is artefact. (I can't imagine a physical reason for it, the load is only 74 microHenry.)
It's running behind me right now, triggering on the proper channel and showing only a teenytiny phase shift, and I can't reproduce that shift shown in the video. Now watch youknowwho take that ball and run with it. Since there's no possibility of applying an external trigger in this case I can't prove phase accuracy except by comparisons.
Quote

I wonder what would happen to the energy calculations (and the oscillation) if you were to place a cap suitable for high frequency across the battery connections at your board so that only DC is indicated at the battery terminals.
Probably the same thing that happened in .99's simulation. The illusory oscillations on the battery voltage would go away. But the sign of the power is still determined by the sign of the current, isn't it?
Quote

It looks like your Ibias and Ibattery ammeters are in much closer agreement than before.
Yes, and I still don't fully understand this detail. It's more than coincidence but I don't see how the same current could be flowing in both places. There must be some key element I'm not getting.
Quote

Have you managed to get anything else done?  Did the pups get their shots today?

PW
Yep, dogs vaccinated, Murphy has no microchip so he's now officially our dog and not somebody's lost companion, heartworm test negative, started on preventative, everybody survived (but a Rottweiler bit a little rat dog at the vet clinic and there was chaos for 5 minutes).
 8)
 

 





 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 05:16:21 AM
I didn't get quite that much. Perhaps we measured differently or I made an error somewhere, since the first two cycle means agree with yours, but my overall mean is a bit lower. Still solidly negative though.
If this is intended as a measure of the wattage delivered - then you need to recalculate this as it's based on the resistance of your current sensing resistor which you keep referring to as a CVR

That's just for starters.  Which shows us all that you have no CLUE.  With the utmost respect.

I have a whole lot of comments on those videos of yours.  All of them. All of them grossly flawed.  But I see how you'll need to hold the floor for a little longer.  Feel free.  It's amusing to watch this nonsense.

Again and ever,
rosie

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:17:26 AM
Another data point:

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:24:48 AM
If this is intended as a measure of the wattage delivered - then you need to recalculate this as it's based on the resistance of your current sensing resistor which you keep referring to as a CVR

That's just for starters.  Which shows us all that you have no CLUE.  With the utmost respect.

You are a liar. You have no respect for anything or anyone going on in this thread. And it is you who "have no clue". Now... stop with your insults and distractions and GO DO YOUR OWN TESTS. If you can find any  "academics" to referee it, that is.
Quote

I have a whole lot of comments on those videos of yours.  All of them. All of them grossly flawed.  But I see how you'll need to hold the floor for a little longer.  Feel free.  It's amusing to watch this nonsense.

Again and ever,
rosie

Rosie Pose

I'll put my "nonsense" up against yours FOR INDEPENDENT EVALUATION any time you are READY, Rosie Poser. You are ignorant of your topic and you choose to remain so, and for some reason you desire to flaunt that ignorance at every opportunity. Where are your supporters? Where is a SINGLE PERSON who still agrees with you? Where is a SINGLE PERSON who is qualified in electronics that will say that my work here is invalid?

Now go away UNTIL YOU HAVE TESTS OF YOUR OWN TO REPORT.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 05:29:03 AM


WHY are you reposting that link.  I've seen it.  It's WRONG.  Your calculation of the amperage is WRONG.  No other way to put it.  I thought you were posing as the EXPERT?

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:32:48 AM

WHY are you reposting that link.  I've seen it.  It's WRONG.  Your calculation of the amperage is WRONG.  No other way to put it.  I thought you were posing as the EXPERT?

Rosie Pose
Reposting what link? The one to your 25.6 million Joule calculation? The one to all the wrong things and lies you've made in the past three weeks?


How is my calculation wrong, Rosie Poser? Please enlighten us and SHOW YOUR WORK.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 05:35:46 AM
TK,

I was thinking that was quite a bit of phase shift.  But, that is why one should always confirm measurements. 

Regarding the Ibatt versus Ibias, unless your DC ammeters are responding to the AC component, which some DC ammeters might might do with clipped or assymetrical AC waveforms, the DC currents should be the same.

The only DC path for Rload is by way of Q2's source and the bias supply/resistor (other than a very small gate leakage current).  At DC, the current should be the same measured anywhere in "the loop", unless there is a DC "sneak" path unaccounted for.

Have you ever attempted placing a cap across your Vbatt connections?

How do your dogs handle trips to the vet?

By the way, you sometimes do indeed provide a good chuckle...

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 05:36:32 AM
Reposting what link? The one to your 25.6 million Joule calculation? The one to all the wrong things and lies you've made in the past three weeks?


How is my calculation wrong, Rosie Poser? Please enlighten us and SHOW YOUR WORK.

Do your own homework TK.  If you can't work it out one assumes picowatt would.  What's wrong with you all?  There's error after error after error and NOT ONE OF YOU ever notices.

Rosie
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:47:17 AM
@PW: They had fun. It's always an exciting outing and they usually get treats.


Apparently Rosemary doesn't yet understand how to measure current using a Current Viewing Resistor and an oscilloscope, even though I have posted the video showing exactly how to do it and comparing the reading with the Ohm's Law theoretical value as well as with two other meters.
Yet she refuses to say just exactly what's wrong with the method.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPVOkDQsXfs

The voltage drop across a current viewing resistor, Rosie Poser, is related to the current flowing through that resistor by Ohm's Law. I = V / R. So if you have a voltage across the resistor of 0.5 volts, and your resistor is 0.25 Ohms.... the current is I = 0.5 / 0.25 = 2.0 Amps. If you have a value of -2 volts, as you do in your scopeshot below, the current is -8 amps. That's the way it is, that's the way I calculated and once again you are wrong and easily refuted.



Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 05:48:54 AM
TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:49:22 AM
Do your own homework TK.  If you can't work it out one assumes picowatt would.  What's wrong with you all?  There's error after error after error and NOT ONE OF YOU ever notices.

Rosie

Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.

So enlighten us. Step by step. You  know I'd do it for you.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 05:52:12 AM
TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW
And this is significant how?

And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?

Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on April 22, 2012, 05:56:56 AM
Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.

So enlighten us. Step by step. You  know I'd do it for you.

OK.  So.  You now want me to engage?  Is that it?  No TK.  I'll keep my counsel for now.  You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions.  Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts?  I'm saving them up for when I get the floor.  Can't be much longer now.

Rosie Pose
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 06:02:32 AM
And this is significant how?

And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?

Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.

TK,

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

PW 

 
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt on April 22, 2012, 06:06:17 AM
OK.  So.  You now want me to engage?  Is that it?  No TK.  I'll keep my counsel for now.  You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions.  Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts?  I'm saving them up for when I get the floor.  Can't be much longer now.

Rosie Pose

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



Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 06:06:43 AM
TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW

The only place in the "papers" where the CVR inductance is mentioned -- except for its implausibly low value in the table of materials -- is this passage from Paper 1:

Quote
Also to be noted is that there is a measure of inductance on
the current-sensing resistor that begs some margin for error in
the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the
transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can
be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits
from the inductances that are measured over the circuit
components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive
and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the
indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily
established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical
amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into
the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the
oscillation, in the first instance. The potential for the circuit to
be used in a booster converter mode also begs the requirement
for more robust transistors than is available in the market.
There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely
quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to
the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element.
This was based on the fact that in all tests and,
notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset
adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from
the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in
temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as
being anomalous.

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."
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala 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?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala 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?
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: picowatt 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
 :-*
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala on April 22, 2012, 06:40:54 AM
Extra special non-inductive shunt resistors, wired so as to minimize overall inductance?

Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
Post by: TinselKoala 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