Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

picowatt

Around here, preschoolers are under five.

Their actual age is immaterial.  The fact is that no preschooler would be allowed to handle a solder iron - in the first instance - unless it's entirely disconnected from the supply.  And NO preschooler is assumed to have an adult level of competence in reading, writing and arithmetic.  What you were IMPLYING by INFERENCE - is that my own competence on both levels is therefore less than a preschoolers'.  Where you 'errored' as it's been referred to - is by analogy to an entirely FALLACIOUS standard that was FABRICATED in order to INFER and IMPLY your MOST REQUIRED SPIN which is that I'm intellectually bereft and somewhat less than competent or average.  Which, at BEST is SLANDEROUS.  And at worst - it's ACTIONABLE SLANDER.  And you EXPECT me to engage - on a co-operative basis - with this well published comment in full public view?

As I said in my answer to the first of the two questions you asked,  I gave you my "opinion".  You can no more argue against that then if you had asked "how do you feel".

I do not give a tuppeny damn if that's an 'opinion' or if you're INFERRING it as a 'fact'.  The evidence persists.  There is a flow of current while the battery is evidently NOT discharging any current - unless it is discharging a negative current flow.  AND THAT would need to be classed as anomalous. Unless your 'SPIN' requires you to STATE - REPEATEDLY - that there's 'nothing unusual'... 'mores the pity'... thing that you do.  Over and over.

As I have been weighing the evidence and the proposed reasons for the neg mean pwr measurement, the available data is, in my opinion, pointing towards .99's analysis.  I do not have to justify or prove that to you, quite the contrary, the onus is on you to understand his analysis and prove it incorrect if that is what you believe.

Pointy Point is the only one of your members that has actually even addressed the issues.  He has shown that on his simulations he is able to obviate the negative wattage relative to the amount of inductance factored in over those wires.  I have no reason to doubt Poynty's measurements.  But then - what Poynty needs to do is show that there is a current discharge FROM the battery - in the first place - in order to apply those power measurements. You are all HOPING that this is fully explained as it relates to the ability of a function generator to pass current through its probes to allow this during the oscillation phase of the duty cycle.  I am waiting to hear your arguments as it relates to the use of a 555.  Because there is then no POSSIBLE distortion from the function generator.  But you're right.  There is NO REASON for you to explain your OPINION.  Nor need you.  We, on the contrary have explained it. And we'll do better.  We'll both demonstrate it and explain it  - AT LENGTH.  You have none of you addressed the questions even. And your solutions, if such they are, are typical over simplifications of that evidence.  Which has been the fall back of every single one of you all of you.  Which calls your expertise to question.
   
continued/...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

Many possible explanations have been given for the mean neg pwr measurement including skew, FG power, equipment grounding, etc.   Although some of these issues may in the end affect a battery run down test, the available data and the fact that TK is also able to produce a neg mean pwr, in my opinion, supports .99's analysis as it relates to the neg mean pwr measurement.

There is NO way that this can be 'disproved' IF - we, correspondingly CAN prove it.  That's the object of the demonstration.  Let me re-iterate.  You are VERY well aware of the COP>17 claim - that has been ROUNDLY discounted by two of the major players in that replication.  I shall start with that test and demonstrate that we not only are able to PROVE a COP>17 but that we can vastly IMPROVE on even those values.  Then I'll move onto our NERD circuit array.  Because that has the real merit of showing up the anomalies.  How it performs is yet to be determined.  But it will be determined against control - run concurrently with the experiment IN BOTH TESTS.

You are not having to take anything at all "on faith".  I gave you my opinion.  If you do not believe .99's analysis or my support of it to be correct, then perform the test I proposed with the cap bypassed battery supply and additional lead inductance if needed.  Make a pwr measurement using the battery voltage as measured at the circuit terminals and another taken using the smoothed battery voltage.  If a neg mean pwr is indicated in both measurements, as I said, I will have to reconsider my opinion.  But again, the onus is on you to provide evidence against the most logical and rational explanation given to date.

That test PROVES NOTHING.  It takes away the very factor that we rely on to induce that oscillation in the first instance.  The only thing yet to be tested - is whether or not this impacts on the battery efficiencies.  And that principle WE will test - under careful guidance - and with full and demonstrable proof - as required.

I believe in the past you attempted to operate your circuit on capacitors instead of batteries without success.  This to me, further supports the fact that power is being drawn from the batteries and that the indicated neg mean pwr measurement is again, incorrect as per .99's analysis.

The fact that the circuit does not operate with capacitors PROVES our claim rather than otherwise.  But then you need to wrap you mind around that claim.  We are NOT proving over unity. We're PROVING that circuit material is capable of 'generating' energy.

As for your second question, I have no interest in arguing with you about AC conditions and how oscillators function when we cannot come to agreement on the very simple, non-oscillation dependent DC conditions.  If you do not believe that in quiescent conditions, with the FG at negative offset, Q2 is biased on and passing current, with its DC return path thru the function generator, there is no need for further discussion.  And, quite frankly, I am just not interested in any more tortured discussions.

The logical fallacies of this statement is something that I suspect would give Wilby a 'field day'.  If the 'effect' is unrelated to the function generator - then the the argument is VOID.  A 555 switch proves that it is unrelated to a function generator.

continued/...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My interst in your circuit was purely with respect to the indicated neg mean pwr measurement.  To my satisfaction, the questions regarding that measurement have been answered.  As time allows, I may do additional testing to further confirm .99's analysis, but as of now, the probability is very, very high that .99's analysis is correct.

How you can find this satisfactorily answers anything at all - is confusing.  TK has NOT given us any measurements YET to indicate anything at all.  I trust is about to do that 'battery draw down' number.  And I'm satisfied that you, Poynty, MileHigh and sundry other contributors to TK's thread - will ENDORSE his conclusions.  And then I will be in the happy position of testing this for myself.  Our first test that TK ALSO claims to have 'debunked' being that COP>17 test - will, most assuredly - be TK's first VICTIM.  I unequivocally undertake that we will demonstrate and PROVE that COP>17 number by more than COP>17.  The NERD circuit array is yet to be tested under battery draw down conditions.  I'll defer stating anything categorically here - because, frankly, I don't know.

If you wish to do additional testing that disproves .99's analysis, or do a battery run down test that far exceeds your battery's capabilities to run this circuit for 200-300 hours of operation, I would be interested in seeing that data.  (assumes 60V, 60A/Hr battery and 13 watt draw from circuit).

OK.  I've answered this.  Yes.  I will be DELIGHTED  to prove the first.  Am yet to find out about the second.  But I would be entirely disinclined to rely on TK's evidence of this - either for or against.  And those demonstrations will be in full public view on at least two forums.

For now, and at the very least, TK's circuit's ability to demonstrate a neg mean pwr should be 100% solid proof that such a measurement alone, under the conditions made, cannot be used to support evidence of overunity or COP>1.

VERY CONFUSING SPIN HERE picowatt.  TK has YET to show us any evidence that he CAN'T generate a negative wattage.  I keep hoping.  And that negative number most certainly DOES NOT support over unity or COP>1.  It supports INFINITE COP.

In the end, a "wire" is not always "just a wire".

I agree.  It becomes all kinds of things when it's the subject of SPIN.
As ever,
Rosie Pose.

I took this over to three posts. Else each post fall off the page.  Sorry guys.

[picowatt]

@PW:
It's perfectly clear, thanks, and it won't take too much time at all, and I have lots of caps big and small. I could put 40,000 uF across the 60 volt stack with no problem if necessary, and I can sub a 70,000 uF cap for a single battery as Mile High has suggested, if necessary. And yes... I'm aware of what 40,000 uF at 60 volts can do if it's mishandled... knock on wood. I don't want any batteries or caps catching fire on ME.

But Ainslie has a point too, and that's by removing the oscillations we are also removing any effect they might have on the battery. So of course we'd get a positive power flow using measurements from the battery, since the beneficial oscillations are being "captured" somehow by the filters and never get there. This is also the objection I had to the validity of the LEDs of Doom test: putting a diode, even a forward-biased one, would seem to block the oscillations or otherwise affect them, and so might block the beneficial effect if there is one.

So shouldn't I put my filter caps in an explosion shield, in case they charge up past their capacity and explode?

I'm sure you've blown up a capacitor or two in your time. Those little electrolytic cans are especially neat when they blow: I've seen them eject the entire roll of electrode material like a party cracker firework thing.

But then there's the other special pleading, hand-waving explanation: the oscillations and the battery are a system. Both need to be involved for any special effect to show up. So if the oscs are prevented from reaching the battery maybe there's no possibility of OU anywhere, not even in the filter caps.

So, other than proving that if you prevent the oscs from reaching the battery, you don't get a negative mean power product .... what does the test intend to test? Is it of anything more than "academic" interest?

TK,

Please keep in mind that this test is not intended to prove anything with regard to battery rundown, charging, etc.  It is merely designed to show that both a neg mean pwr and pos mean pwr can be measured from the same circuit operating  under identical conditions.  This test only goes to the reliability of the neg mean pwr measurement as a true indicator of, or proof of, COP>1.

You don't need huge caps, you need caps that have good properties at the freq of osc.  Big electrolytics will likely have too much inductance and ESR.  A smaller 220uF electrolytic, a .22 poly, and/ or some ceramics in parallel will probably suffice.  You will have to confirm that the osc is unaffected.  As I said, add more wire if needed.  Who knows, maybe it won't oscillate.

As well, maybe you'll see a neg mean at the decoupled battery.  It is, after all, an "experiment"!

PW

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

I glanced your three post whatever.

As soon as I saw your continuation of the discussion regarding preschoolers and soldering, and your apparent continued disbelief, and as I don't appreciate your continued insinuation that I am lying about that, I only bothered to skim a very small amount of the rest.   Get over it, its fact.

I will address only one point.  When I discuss the Fg and Q2 being biased on, it is not an "effect", it is a fact.  And no, a FG is not specifically needed, a battery in series with a resistor, a power supply, a 555, all manner of sources may be used to bias Q2 on.  Does Wilby believe that Q2 is not being biased on when the function generator output is a negative voltage?  Is that what you are saying?

PW