Testing the TK Tar Baby

[fuzzytomcat]

You "&%_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s" are nothing more than a bunch of rabid dogs displaying the worst in Pack Mentality.  You put words in people's mouths.  You will feed off of yourselves until you are gone.  Example: I never referred to the 555 as "useless" ... you guys did yet there you went, inferring that I said that.  At least the world had the opportunity to see this:
"

Wow Greg !   

Personally I've never ran with any pack, I do question opportunist with banners of dubitable intentions. If you can't manage a TRUE scientific "REPLICATION" of a device, that's not mine or anyone else's problem but the experimentalist doing the work. I must emphasize that the "CORRECT" terminology should be used to be more explicit in all meanings so there is no confusion on anyones part.

I'm glad to "FINALLY" see that Rosemary has hired a professional "article" writer / composer whom advertises in the new forum you seem to be so fond of, maybe he can help you all "OVER THERE". 


FTC

[fuzzytomcat]

@ Greg ( gmeast )

If your having trouble with the "Quantum 2002" circuit there is a available option but everyone else known hasn't had any luck. Now that your under Rosemary's wing maybe she'll release what is claimed to be as indicated in her possession ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html      07-13-2009, 07:52 AM

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. 

Rosemary's quote is quite specific that she has a "Quantum 2002" device that has a claimed COP>17 efficiency of operation ( using a flyback diode ? ) ..... she is withholding 100% all the required information to replicate the device or she's a liar and doesn't have said device with any COP>17 not even a COP<1 . 

Of course .... you are a member also at "Energetic Forum" so you should already know the history there on this I assume. 


FTC

[TinselKoala]

There is a lot more prevarication and mendacity from Ainslie in that post.

I ask you all to consider this. Take a random 555 timer circuit and some "mistaken" timing caps and resistors. Assemble it and test the frequency range and duty cycle.

Does your random circuit make the EXACT INVERSE of the duty cycle claimed to have been used in the Quantum paper? Of course not. Perhaps Ainslie and her sycophants do not realize that the caps and resistors of a 555 timer circuit are CALCULATED based on desired performance parameters. A simple "error" would NOT result in an exact inverted cycle.... these values were deliberately calculated to result in the duty cycle attained: one which would make the mosfet DRAIN voltage be HIGH only 3.7 percent of the time. In other words, a fundamental conceptual error guided the design of the 555 timer switch and carried all through the subsequent work of Ainslie and her sycophants. Even in some discussions of the present, 5 mosfet circuit she makes the same error.... which is why there are no Drain voltage traces shown in most of Ainslie's current claims. She cannot understand why the Drain voltage is LOW when the circuit's load is receiving power and goes back to battery voltage when the mosfet gate signal is LOW.

The story about the 555 timer circuit that she told in that quoted post is a complete lie. She used the circuit that is given in the Quantum article, it makes the exact inverted duty cycle, and it gives a 3.7 percent HI voltage at the mosfet drain. This is what made Ainslie, and most of the "replicators" at Energetic Forum, think that the  mosfet and the load were ON for only 3.7 percent of the time..... they did not and in some cases STILL do not understand that in the circuit as given, when the mosfet drain voltage is HIGH the mosfet, and the load, are OFF.

Ainslie did use the timer circuit given in the Quantum article  .... which can be seen easily by anyone else who does it..... because her load temperature profiles correspond very accurately to a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load, given by the 555 timer as used in the circuit, and as we know her claims about battery recharging are simply not true.

[TinselKoala]

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode  - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

She claims the "feedback diode" was "in the apparatus".

Yet when she began the present set of "experiments" using a single mosfet, in an attempt to repeat her earlier work... before anyone even conceived of the  5 mosfet system...... there is no "feedback diode" in evidence.

And in several "revised" schematics she presented in 2009 .... there is no recirculation diode in the schematic.

There was no diode used by Ainslie in the Quantum circuit. There is no evidence to support her claim and there is plenty of evidence that refutes it.

TIE? EIT? IET? Whatever.... In this "rewrite" of the Quantum article, which also gives some of Glen's results, the only diodes mentioned are the ones in the 555 circuit and the mosfet's body diode.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html

Ainslie simply lies when she claims that a recirculation/flyback/feedback diode was used in the original Quantum article. Nor was any used or claimed by her until well after the hard work in 2009 of replicators like Glen, .99, and..... me. It doesn't even appear in the EIT submission made in 2010.

[ionizer]

Lol the cmos555 uses much smaller caps than normal 555. Here is a data sheet for ya.

Im not against pwm chips. I just wanted to clarify that the cmos 555 is a fine circuit. Using 2 of these LMC555, we are still below GM's claim that his 2 ICs use 1/4 of the power of a 555.  Using 2 lmc555, 1 as a freq oscillator and on as the pwm(shown below) using 12v input, these 2 chips would consume 300ua to 800ua max. 
12v/.8ma = 9.6mw = 2 lmc555 max

So what is your pwm IC spec for power consumed at 12v?

Its not a real big deal, but GMs statement might be misleading. 555 is not a useless IC.

MaGs

Offcource this does not change the fact that it still is wasting energy by discharging the cap onto a resistor.
That just isn't right.

Micro's usually run somwhere between 3,3 and 5 volts but as you know the operating current depends on the frequency and i don't see any in your example.

Anyway the 12f629 has a operating current of 100uA @ 1 MHz, 2.0V
Thats micro amps and not milli amps !

I do have something against 555 as oscillator or pwm they drift and they are not suitable for such application.
They also effect each other when they are placed on the same supply rail due to the RF noise they generate.
They are good for delay timers and led flashlights but not as high speed oscillator or pwm.
I'm not saying it's a bad chip but choose the right component for the right application.

A digital uc with a crystal clock is about the best you can get and it is programmable to do whatever you want it to do and the price good too.