Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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. 

Rosie Posie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

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

[picowatt]

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






 

[Magluvin]

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. 

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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