Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Capacitive inductance again.... and MORE BLOWN MOSFETS..... somehow "degraded".  But she's reproduced her constant errors Yet Again, as anyone can who cares to.

Too bad there is no more reality checking. It was getting amusing there, watching her squirm when presented with facts. But now, she's entirely living in her own fantasy world and can say whatever she likes without the inconvenient requirement to provide any evidence.

We've never seen a part number for her "noninductive shunt". We know that the expensive motor-start capacitor she purchased while ignoring .99's suggestions is not appropriate for the measurements that need to be made. We know for certain that she doesn't understand impedance or the contributions of inductive and capacitive reactance to total impedance. We are quite certain that an attempt to reproduce the long periods and the 72 volts input will result in the Q1 mosfet overheating and failing..... and we know that is the only way that the scopeshots we have questioned can be produced. And we do NOT know just what circuit schematic she is using, since she herself doesn't even know, or realise the difference. And we'll not be seeing any real data from these idiots.

She's reduced to the position of essentially saying "look, if you hold everything just right, you can see a tiny sparkle in this glass, therefore it is the Hope Diamond".... when everybody can see that it is only a lump of glass.

[mrsean2k]

And, without the burden of experts to disagree with him, he's back:

[TinselKoala]

It's laughable indeed. Perhaps it's suitable punishment for them, simply to be allowed to travel down their dead-end carnival path, wasting time and effort, but never being able to do what their numbers tell them they should be able to do.

I can't see the scope traces. It is possible that gmeast is also making the Fundamental Mosfet Error of thinking that when his drain voltage is HIGH it means the mosfet is ON and conducting? 

And I sure would like to see the equipment he uses, to measure electrical power to the hundredth of a milliWatt. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the citing of numbers with that kind of false precision: they are wrong. How far wrong may be up to debate in some quarters, but unless corroboration can be given for the accuracy of that hundredth of a milliWatt precision claim...... they are undeniably wrong.

[mrsean2k]

Well he's told you there's "no doubt" (p < 0.000000019997) that the gate is off, so that's an end to it.


And cheesenyt is systematically cracking the other conspiracies as a bonus.


But has he, in the course of the thread, given enough information to calculate the true input power on the assumption he's currently calculating with an inverted duty cycle? I couldn't see it, but I doubt I'd recognise it (and who's to say how consistent any of it is?)

[mrsean2k]

If the voltage falls below that value, I can not get the desired results.

Why would the voltage fall below that value (25.1V)?


As he's producing excess energy, he can keep the battery topped up, as RA at least has claimed to have done for some time, and heat using the excess only.