Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Sorry, I was confused...
My last statement is not right.

I now see, that the current ala Benjamin Franklin direction
flows from the Plus pole of the main battery through heater -> Q2 -> 10.3 Ohm
shunt-> wiper of pot->negative pole of 9 Volts battery.

As the 9 Volts battery is in series via the Rshunt with the main battery and the minus pole
of the 9 Volts battery is the lowest voltage potential, due to Kirchoff´s law also the same 155 mA current
flows in the plus pole of the 9 Volts battery back via Rshunt to the ground of the main battery´s minus pole...

A bit hard to see with this not optimal drawn circuit diagramm...

Regards, Stefan.

Ahh... this is starting to sink in now. I was having trouble understanding the coincident readings of the two current meters I'm using, one simply in series with the main battery at the negative terminal, and the other in line with the 9v battery between the 10.3R/pot wiper and the main circuit. But now I can see that if you are right it's actually all the same current and the two power sources are in series.

This does complicate the power measurement, because it does seem to indicate that the bias power is making it to the load. But does this "extra" voltage appear on the main battery? Where would be the appropriate monitoring point to see the Total Voltage, that is, the main battery plus the bias supply voltage? If they are in series there must be some place where the full voltage can be monitored.

ETA: What all that power does to pots: The Ainslie component-destroyer strikes again !
This is some kind of high-dollar pot called a "HotPot". It didn't withstand the concentrated power going through that tiny slider onto the resistive patch. See the burned spot? Most of the pots I've tried to use with the Ainslie circuits wind up like this in short order.

[MileHigh]

Hey TK:

Just some more cheering from the peanut gallery.  You are doing an awesome job.  Your replication is a breakthrough showing negative power and we all know that the batteries are discharging and you have already presented evidence of that fact.  You expressed a desire to wrap it all up in a neat and tidy bundle.  At your leisure, we know that you are working hard and spending money out of pocket for this.

It's not the time and the money, it's the glory!  lol

Just out of curiosity, any chance one of your nice old analog scopes has the "Ch.1 - Ch. 2" pull-out knob?  Perhaps you have a decent differential probe at your disposal but it just slipped your mind...

When you get bored you can go into "X-Y" mode and make some pretty Lissajous figures on your scope display with the Outer Limits TOS theme on in the background.  lol

We can see there is one grumpy and disgruntled observer of the goings on, that's for sure.  Whenever she drops the term "science" you know things aren't going too well for her.  Her recent comments were all nothing but shameless spin doctoring in an attack against you in a vain attempt to prevent the ongoing erosion of her proposition.  Me thinks that there erosion filter is being applied each and every passing passing day and her "island" will get tinier and tinier.

That's what good science is all about!  Catch the wave!

You know a hero from our generation said, "And castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually."

Keep on trucking!

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Hey TK:

Just some more cheering from the peanut gallery.  You are doing an awesome job.  Your replication is a breakthrough showing negative power and we all know that the batteries are discharging and you have already presented evidence of that fact.  You expressed a desire to wrap it all up in a neat and tidy bundle.  At your leisure, we know that you are working hard and spending money out of pocket for this.

It's not the time and the money, it's the glory!  lol

Yeah, gotta love that glory, it's great on a hot afternoon!
But.....  _are_ my batteries discharging? I've been using them for it seems like many hours PER day for every working day for at least 3 or 4 days now, heating the load and osculating fack and borth..... held the load at over 60 degrees C for hours last evening.... and they STILL measure over 12 volts each. And these are the 5 A-H batteries, too.

Just out of curiosity, any chance one of your nice old analog scopes has the "Ch.1 - Ch. 2" pull-out knob?  Perhaps you have a decent differential probe at your disposal but it just slipped your mind...

Nope, not the HP180. No XY mode without feeding a separate horizontal amp to the display through its ext input. It can be done easily on the Tek RM503 up on the shelf, but that one has a power supply fault that I haven't fixed yet. The RM503 has exactly symmetrical X and Y amplifiers and the X amp can be taken off the timebase completely. I guess I'm gonna have to tear into it and sort it out pretty soon.

When you get bored you can go into "X-Y" mode and make some pretty Lissajous figures on your scope display with the Outer Limits TOS theme on in the background.  lol

The 503 has the prettiest persistent blue phosphor too. This particular one came from the NASA Ames Blade Dynamics laboratory where it might have been used to develop who-knows-what-all interesting stuff.

We can see there is one grumpy and disgruntled observer of the goings on, that's for sure.  Whenever she drops the term "science" you know things aren't going too well for her.  Her recent comments were all nothing but shameless spin doctoring in an attack against you in a vain attempt to prevent the ongoing erosion of her proposition.  Me thinks that there erosion filter is being applied each and every passing passing day and her "island" will get tinier and tinier.

That's what good science is all about!  Catch the wave!

You know a hero from our generation said, "And castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually."

Keep on trucking!

MileHigh

Awww... shucks. I'm just an old warhorse with a burr under my saddle blanket, trying to shake it loose.

No amount of spin doctoring or, as I like to call it, frantic flailing about, can alter the truth, which, with cooperation and research, will eventually out. That's the great thing about the scientific method: one is actually allowed to make mistakes, right out in public, where they can be corrected so that everyone learns just what the real state of affairs really is. But this requires cooperation among the participants, as well as a willing attitude to learn and a certain humility in the face of hard data and facts. Not to mention a solid grounding in the basics of the subject matter, including the terminology and the underlying mathematical relationships involved. Otherwise... without common terms, how can one communicate? And without mathematical accuracy, how can one be credible when it comes to the _hard stuff_? Simple math is easy, compared to actually reasoning correctly about data.

But are you _really_ experienced?



ETA Data:

[Farmhand]

Hi TK, I'm curious to know, do you guys actually think anyone with half a brain even believed Rosemary's claims ? Some claims are quite old. It is good to see the system
evaluated like this though. I still don't get it, why do people think they actually have a device when they are using function generators for signals. The energy consumed by the
function generators to run should be included as input. Tell her to come back with a system not connected to the grid. If a 555 timer is used to provide the signal then it's input is
considered input because it is part of the system. Rosemary's system has function generators as part of the system so all of the input to them is also input to the system. I think
that would instantly destroy her claims without much work. Does she include the input to the function generators from the grid as input to the device and include that into the
C.O.P. calculations. Imagine what she would say if a person turned up to evaluate the setup and the first thing they did was put a watt meter on the input to the function
generators so they could include their power consumption in the C.O.P. calculations. That would be the first thing I would do.

Now a better mark would be Thane Heins, although he has no credibility in my books he has more people believing him than Rosemary does I think. Some of us would be
prepared to donate money to have systems evaluated properly. And the glory would go to the one doing the evaluating. Why stop at Rosemary, busting her crazy claims won't
solve much.

By the way I like your Telsa coil TK, it's very nice.

Cheers

[TinselKoala]

So with the NERDs stated CVR value of 0.25 ohms DC resistance, and an inductance of 110  nH, and an oscillation frequency of 1.5 MHz.... it turns out that the inductive reactance is almost exactly 1 Ohm and the AC impedance therefore is also close to 1 Ohm (1.03 Ohm is what I get). What this means is that by a strange coincidence the Ainslie NERD scope shots that show the math trace  "VV" value from multiplying the voltage drop in the CVR times the voltage on the battery oscillations... is in fact very close to an actual Wattage reading, just as it stands.

I can't find anywhere in the Ainslie material where this simple analysis is done, though. But it does account for the fact that their wattage claims and the VV figure are awfully close. Is this just luck? I mean, the resistors are OTS common power resistors, the oscillation frequency is determined by the overall inductance in a distributed rather than lumped manner and the wiring of the Ainslie breadboard is definitely not deliberately "tight"... so I'm going to go with "coincidence" since it's pretty clear that it couldn't possibly have been designed with that in mind.