Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

(snip)
Yes, of course. They clearly state what each trace is in the video. Yes, it was most likely set to AC coupling to make it easier to display. The presumption is that they multiplied the pink ("battery") and yellow (shunt) voltages, which are both on DC coupling, so there should be no problem with the MATH computation in that regard.

Yes, of course, they do clearly state that in the video, even if their letter points are mixed up. Yet on March 22, when I raised the same issue about the green trace in the locked thread, I got this answer from Ainslie:

TK said, "The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there."

and Ainslie said,

Yet more of those egregious violations.  LOL.  This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal.  Not even close.  It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

And several times later on when the issue was again raised by me, she continued to deny that the green trace was the drains and berated me richly about it over and over.

Yet she has never deigned to explain what, in her mind, the green trace "does" represent.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

From my read of the Tek manual I concur with .99's answers regarding the 'scope.

The Tek injects a DC offset at the preamp input to allow DC to be "nulled" prior to amplification.  This allows small AC details to be viewed on a signal with a large DC component without having to use AC coupling.  "Position" is separate and only a display function on the Tek.

Its a bummer the 'scope isn't a house guest!  So, you had to do all that driving just to get a few screen shots?  I can understand your apparent frustration over having to do so.

Of course I didn't do all that driving just to get a few screen shots. I went to see Tek's momma about something else much more important and interesting, and Tar Baby just came along to play for a few minutes. I probably spend all of ten minutes disconnecting the scope from the (redacted), moving it into another room, taking Tar Baby out of the bag, hooking it up, testing the inverter, programming the raw integral into the scope, and taking the screenshots. I also took a short video that I might post later, if it's not too embarrassing when I review it this morning. I'm sure that if I'd spent half an hour, I probably could have found the bwl button to narrow the trace width, bumped up the sample rate, put in the appropriate constants of integration and XL in the math computation, and even remembered to set all channels to DC offset (actually I did but somewhere in there the scope decided it knew better than me and defaulted that channel back to AC for some reason. Maybe it was when I spilled my coffee into it.)
And of course if I'd had charged batteries the waveshapes would be better and so on and etc.

When I stated your replication was not exact, I did not mean it was materially different.  To do an exact replication, one would have to incorporate identical strays, i.e., layout, wire lengths, clip leads, wood or metal table for the circuit (grounded or not), equip locations, batteries on wood or metal table (grounded or not), equipment grounding, known bias current, etc.  But as far as I am concerned, even with the small differences in oscillation characteristics due to different strays, the two circuits perform similarly and provide similar measurements.

I suspect that any oscillator, connected to any battery (or pwr supply) with supply lead inductances that allow large AC excursions, measured similarly, would produce similar neg mean pwr results.  Even a simple 555 with a 9V battery, under similar conditions with loads scaled accordingly and measured similarly, would very likely produce a neg mean pwr measurement if the true battery voltage were not used in the calculations.

At this time, based on .99's analysis and the work you have done, I believe the negative mean power measurement to be fully explained and reproducible, and that it is not an indication that the circuit is operating without drawing power from the batteries, or recharging them.

PW

I suspect so too, and certainly the negative power value is not an indication of battery recharging. It's too bad that Ainslie refuses to do any real test of whether the batteries are actually recharging, like several of those that I've done and others that have been proposed here. She won't be doing any of those definitive tests in the future either.... because they were first suggested to her at least three years ago... and what she came up with, we have seen in the video taken over a year ago now.

I think that Ainslie should not be allowed to recharge her batteries at all before any new testing. They are all over 12 volts, they are all still fully charged, according to her. Let's take her at her word for once and not allow her to start with known freshly-charged batteries.

Meanwhile, Ainslie tells us this:

There is no way the scope can be used improperly.  A setting is a setting.  We cannot fudge the results.

QED.

[TinselKoala]

On replications:

There are replications, and then there are "exact duplication" replications.

Consider a scenario: A claimant produces an unusual effect, like running a load without discharging batteries, and shows solid, credible evidence that the batteries are not discharging, by comparative load testing according to industry-standard protocol (something like this: http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/450-2002.html) and shows unambigously that there are no other conventional power sources like FGs or bias supplies or RF from the radio station next door.

A "replicator" then assembles a circuit using OTS components and the same schematic but uses a slightly different layout and sets up on his Formica-over-metal kitchen table instead of on the claimant's slate laboratory workbench surface. The replicator fails to find non-discharge under the IEEE test protocols, much less using a Dim Bulb test.

OK... now consider another scenario:

A claimant produces an unusual effect (but one which more experienced people have seen before.) Evidence in the form of scope shots and data dumps to spreadsheets confirm the _effect_ itself.  The claimant also claims that this effect must indicate non-discharging batteries, but produces nothing but non-verifiable anecdotes in support of this major claim. Meanwhile, back in the Deep Bunker...

A "replicator" then assembles the same circuit using OTS components and the same schematic but uses a slightly different layout and sets up in his home laboratory instead of in a University broom closet. The "effect" appears, and is so robust that he is able to pack up the apparatus in a bag and take it anywhere and reproduce the same effect produced by the original claimant. But alas.... his batteries DO discharge when tested by standard protocols, or even rough informal ones like the Dim Bulb Test.


Now.... which "replicator" is justified in doing the extra effort to track down strays and strive for a more perfect "exact duplication" kind of replication?

[WilbyInebriated]

cough cough... bullshit...

rep·li·ca·tion  (rpl-kshn)
n.
1. A fold or a folding back.
2. A reply to an answer; a rejoinder.
3. Law The plaintiff's response to the defendant's answer or plea.
4. An echo or reverberation.
5. A copy or reproduction.
6. The act or process of duplicating or reproducing something.
7. Biology The process by which genetic material, a single-celled organism, or a virus reproduces or makes a copy of itself: replication of DNA.
8. In scientific research, the repetition of an experiment to confirm findings or to ensure accuracy.

[TinselKoala]

New video from the Play Date last night is uploading now. I'm going to walk the wild animals and I'll post the link when I get back.


(It's in the bag...)

ETA: Link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHxstOJkFtM