Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Magluvin]

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

[TinselKoala]

@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.

[TinselKoala]

@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.

[TinselKoala]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

/...