Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

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

[fuzzytomcat]

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 ?? 

FTC

[TinselKoala]

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.

[TinselKoala]

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.

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps


Sigh.