Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

WHAT is standard about a measured negative wattage?  I have not seen this question addressed anywhere at all - certainly NOT by mainstream.  That TK manages a negative wattage with the ease at which we do - simply endorses that claim.

You lie, you idiot. Reams have been written about how to avoid making this elementary FULLY UNDERSTOOD mistake in power measurement, and if you could only READ you would find this out. STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS include decoupling capacitors to avoid making just the kind of errors you continue to make.

Not actually.  TK demonstrates that the 'bias current'... at the source leg of Q2 is LESS negative than the battery negative - is the first OBVIOUS error.  But you're right.  So does ours.  The negative at the source leg is INVARIABLY less than the negative at the supply source.  Which makes this argument absurdly inappropriate.

Now you are really outdoing yourself. What does this all mean? You have no idea what I've demonstrated, that's for sure. But nevertheless it seems that you manage to contradict yourself again.

And guys, for those of you who read here - NOTA BENE.  The ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected.

Another word salad. Q2 less than the battery supply. What does this mean? Go ahead, Ainslie... show us how you make oscillations WITHOUT USING AN EXTERNAL SUPPLY.  You cannot... not without doing it like I do. PROVE ME WRONG, you empty sack of hot air.

Not the phase of the moon so much picowatt.  But that's an interesting proposal.  Our findings are precisely in line with the evidence.  When Q1 is positive - then Q2 is negative.  And when Q1 is negative - then Q2 is positive.  You seem to think that this is impossible.  Strangely.  But you are, as ever, entitled to your 'beliefs'.  We - on the other hand - deal with the evidence.

That's not what he or anybody else thinks. You are again LYING deliberately to "spin" what you fear the most: the truth.

I am not interested in TK's circuit.  I am only interested in denying TK's allegations as they relate to OUR circuit.

Rosie Pose

Get lost, Poser. Prove your claims with tests, like Stefan has asked you to, or shut up.  You clearly have accepted that my circuit makes the same "proof" of "overunity" measurements that yours does. So you have nothing more to say here until you can PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.

Once again, Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects, and is ready NOW to prove it in side-by-side or even remote testing. Where are your refutations of MY assertions? You are full of words and nothing more.

[picowatt]

WHAT is standard about a measured negative wattage?  I have not seen this question addressed anywhere at all - certainly NOT by mainstream.  That TK manages a negative wattage with the ease at which we do - simply endorses that claim.
Not actually.  TK demonstrates that the 'bias current'... at the source leg of Q2 is LESS negative than the battery negative - is the first OBVIOUS error.  But you're right.  So does ours.  The negative at the source leg is INVARIABLY less than the negative at the supply source.  Which makes this argument absurdly inappropriate. And guys, for those of you who read here - NOTA BENE.  The ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected.
Not the phase of the moon so much picowatt.  But that's an interesting proposal.  Our findings are precisely in line with the evidence.  When Q1 is positive - then Q2 is negative.  And when Q1 is negative - then Q2 is positive.  You seem to think that this is impossible.  Strangely.  But you are, as ever, entitled to your 'beliefs'.  We - on the other hand - deal with the evidence.
I am not interested in TK's circuit.  I am only interested in denying TK's allegations as they relate to OUR circuit.

Rosie Pose

My favorite chuckle was "the ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected".  I assume by "source at Q2"  you mean as I do, that the source leg of Q2 must be made more negative than the batt- to turn on.

The FG is connected to the source of Q2 and the 'scope traces for the FG output clearly demonstrate that the source of Q2 is being pulled negative, that is, less than the batt- voltage.  And the battery supply need not be disconnected for this to occur.

Thanks for the chuckle,

PW

 

[TinselKoala]

This is truly astounding. After reading over Ainslie's last few thrashing and flailing posts, I can see clearly that she doesn't even realize that the bias supply must be _negative_... .that when the function generator's minus lead is connected to the battery negative pole, the _POSITIVE_ lead of the FG must wind up reading MORE NEGATIVE than that for the oscillations to happen. She can't even use a simple voltmeter to see this and she cannot possibly understand how I have FOR WEEKS been making the oscillations using a battery or power supply instead of the FG to do this.

She's sitting there with no apparatus and no test equipment and no electronics skills and from her posts it's evident that she has no clue at all. It's really too bad that she SIMPLY WON'T EVEN MEASURE HER DEVICE WITH A SIMPLE VOLTMETER because if she did she might learn something.

Come on, Ainslie. Make your oscillations without using a FG or an external power supply. I've done it... can't you, Little Miss Mosfet expert? Several different ways, in fact. What's so hard, since you know everything? Just DO IT. Make some oscillations using the main batteries alone, any way you like.

Oh that's right, sorry.... you can't do anything without two academics on board, and then there's my NERD Preventer.... that's still got you all tied up in "nots".

[picowatt]

And again, the source leg of Q1 and the gate of Q2 are connected to the non-battery end of the CSR.  Therefore, the source leg of Q1 and the gate of Q2 can never be any other voltage than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR.  I do not know how anyone can refute this statement.  Look at the schematic.

PW

ADDED:

The function generator signal ground is also tied to the non-battery end of the CSR, therefore the FG signal common can also never be any voltage other than that of the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR (or the batt- if the FG sig. com is tied to batt- instead).  The FG output will either be positive with respect to the CSR or negative with respect to the CSR.  The FG's signal common voltage does not change, it is tied to the CSR (or batt-).

[picowatt]

This is truly astounding. After reading over Ainslie's last few thrashing and flailing posts, I can see clearly that she doesn't even realize that the bias supply must be _negative_... .that when the function generator's minus lead is connected to the battery negative pole, the _POSITIVE_ lead of the FG must wind up reading MORE NEGATIVE than that for the oscillations to happen. She can't even use a simple voltmeter to see this and she cannot possibly understand how I have FOR WEEKS been making the oscillations using a battery or power supply instead of the FG to do this.

She's sitting there with no apparatus and no test equipment and no electronics skills and from her posts it's evident that she has no clue at all. It's really too bad that she SIMPLY WON'T EVEN MEASURE HER DEVICE WITH A SIMPLE VOLTMETER because if she did she might learn something.

Come on, Ainslie. Make your oscillations without using a FG or an external power supply. I've done it... can't you, Little Miss Mosfet expert? Several different ways, in fact. What's so hard, since you know everything? Just DO IT. Make some oscillations using the main batteries alone, any way you like.

Oh that's right, sorry.... you can't do anything without two academics on board, and then there's my NERD Preventer.... that's still got you all tied up in "nots".

TK,

That is what I meant when I said I did not believe she understood an FG is bipolar and that she was speaking in terms of absolute and not relative voltage.  She apparently believes that somehow the FG is applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2 causing it to turn on.

All the discussions regarding current flow thru the FG were for nought as the concept of the Q2 source needing to be less negative than batt- was not even understood.  Good luck making the circuit oscillate without pulling Q2's source negative wrt the batt-.

Why on earth did you go to all that trouble to bulid the inverting charge pump? 

PW