Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW

And this is significant how?

And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?

Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Show us and explain, Rosie. You are talking to at least one active electronics bench professional, another who seems to be a retired one, and a few brilliant amateurs who all know a lot more about the subject than you do.

So enlighten us. Step by step. You  know I'd do it for you.

OK.  So.  You now want me to engage?  Is that it?  No TK.  I'll keep my counsel for now.  You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions.  Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts?  I'm saving them up for when I get the floor.  Can't be much longer now.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

And this is significant how?

And it is different from RA's shunt inductance how?

Recall that her cited measurement of shunt inductance is implausible, considering the type and wiring of her resistors. And also recall that yesterday she was accusing me of _not having enough_ inductance in the load or shunt.

TK,

If your shunt is truly 1.75uH, it would be closer to 16 ohms at 1.5MHz.

PW 

 

[picowatt]

OK.  So.  You now want me to engage?  Is that it?  No TK.  I'll keep my counsel for now.  You have made a slew of SERIOUS errors and glaringly incorrect statements in all your videos and in these your calculations and conclusions.  Which presumably represents your 'best' efforts?  I'm saving them up for when I get the floor.  Can't be much longer now.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

I for one wish you would "lighten up".  It seems you never "discuss", you always just want to "argue".

It's not very pleasant nor professional.

PW

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I believe we are being reminded of the shunt's inductance.

PW

The only place in the "papers" where the CVR inductance is mentioned -- except for its implausibly low value in the table of materials -- is this passage from Paper 1:

Also to be noted is that there is a measure of inductance on
the current-sensing resistor that begs some margin for error in
the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the
transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can
be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits
from the inductances that are measured over the circuit
components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive
and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the
indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily
established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical
amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into
the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the
oscillation, in the first instance. The potential for the circuit to
be used in a booster converter mode also begs the requirement
for more robust transistors than is available in the market.
There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely
quantify the energy delivered by the battery as this relates to
the measured rise of temperature over the resistor element.
This was based on the fact that in all tests and,
notwithstanding variations to the frequency and offset
adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from
the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in
temperature over ambient on the resistor element is seen as
being anomalous.

Note that last part especially. Here's the translation: "We didn't do the critical measurement to see if our conclusion is right because we know our conclusion is right so we don't have to."