Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

TK,

The referenced RA paper is at the following:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766

PW

Thank you, I have the paper in my files and I have read it several times. This "paper" is the one that was summarily rejected five times by the IEEE journals they submitted it to, isn't it? Am I going to have to read that word salad yet again? They even list an incorrect make and model for their FG in that paper.

And isn't the Instek FG that they used, one of these? Note the frequency range of the units.

http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGFG8216A.html

.99 pointed this out to Rosemary early on during the present incarnation of the zombie tarbaby.:

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310454/#msg310454

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310470/#msg310470 ( with comparison photos)

The FG used by the NERD RATS  in the video demostration is an Instek GFG8216A, with a minimum frequency of 0.3 Hz (or 0.1 Hz depending on where you look) according to its manual and data sheet. How then was it used to make the very slow frequencies that they have claimed? I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on some real evidence that these long cycles were achieved, if  I am to make some special effort to operate in that regime. Meanwhile, the evidence that we do have indicates they used a 50 percent duty cycle at 10 Hz.

An internet search for "iso-tech 324 function generator" or "isotech 324 function generator" returns mostly hits for the INSTEK 8216A. I have not been able to find any discrete listing for a "iso-tech" or "isotech" 342 function generator.  I'd love to see the data sheet for that unit.

http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html#tab4
Note the lowest frequency settings of these Iso-tech function generators. No model "324" is listed. Maybe it's obsolete... but I can't find one listed on the surplus/used market either.

It also looks to me like the front panel of the INSTEK unit is telling us that the "shield" or outer conductor of the FG's output terminals is grounded, not floating.

[picowatt]

TK,

As to the rejection, well, I'll leave that alone...  the point is, which waveform to use.

The one you describe in your posted scope shot is very similar, only the duty cycle/period is different.  Does the hi level of the gate drive signal on the scope shot you posted exceed the zero line?  If not, then Q2 is just being alternately turned off and biased on by the FG as its waveform toggles and Q1 is not being utilized in any active way, except for its intrinsic capacitances and body diode.

Your optocoplers are hard switching the gates, which is not the same as the bias being used on the RA common gate amplifier circuit to just barely turn on Q2 for somewhat linear operation.  Q2 is configured as an amplifier, not a switch.  There are other ways to bias Q2 into a similar region besides applying a negative voltage to its source via a resistor, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change. 

I suggest an FG setting at a convenient to scope period with an open circuit excursion between -15 and zero volts, unless more data is available regarding the FG max positive swing voltage.  I believe your Interstate can be set to place the complete waveform at the zero volts level and below (I believe that's what I saw in one of your videos).  In that setting, amplitude can be used to set the negative swing value instead of using the offset control (very cool FG).  Just keep in mind that you only want to bias Q2 on slightly, 100-250ma., and not fully turn it on.  Also, keep in mind that there will be a lot of dissiation in Q2 when biased that way...  proper heat needed.

Hard switching Q2 would definitely be more efficient regarding less loss in Q2 and more power at the load, but the "magic" is supposed to be in the oscillations.  Hard switching the MOSFETS and using a lower Rdson MOSFET would eliminate the need for a heat sink, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.

PW

[TinselKoala]

TK,

As to the rejection, well, I'll leave that alone...  the point is, which waveform to use.

The one you describe in your posted scope shot is very similar, only the duty cycle/period is different.  Does the hi level of the gate drive signal on the scope shot you posted exceed the zero line?  If not, then Q2 is just being alternately turned off and biased on by the FG as its waveform toggles and Q1 is not being utilized in any active way, except for its intrinsic capacitances and body diode.

Your optocoplers are hard switching the gates, which is not the same as the bias being used on the RA common gate amplifier circuit to just barely turn on Q2 for somewhat linear operation.  Q2 is configured as an amplifier, not a switch.  There are other ways to bias Q2 into a similar region besides applying a negative voltage to its source via a resistor, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change. 

I suggest an FG setting at a convenient to scope period with an open circuit excursion between -15 and zero volts, unless more data is available regarding the FG max positive swing voltage.  I believe your Interstate can be set to place the complete waveform at the zero volts level and below (I believe that's what I saw in one of your videos).  In that setting, amplitude can be used to set the negative swing value instead of using the offset control (very cool FG).  Just keep in mind that you only want to bias Q2 on slightly, 100-250ma., and not fully turn it on.  Also, keep in mind that there will be a lot of dissiation in Q2 when biased that way...  proper heat needed.

Hard switching Q2 would definitely be more efficient regarding less loss in Q2 and more power at the load, but the "magic" is supposed to be in the oscillations.  Hard switching the MOSFETS and using a lower Rdson MOSFET would eliminate the need for a heat sink, but again, the flavor of the circuit would change.

PW

Now I am beginning to think you either haven't watched all the videos or I am not explaining things very well. Using my FG to produce a strict negative-going pulse train, from 0 Volts to minus whatever, adjusted by varying the _amplitude_ control not the offset, I am making oscillations just as you say. When I turn the amplitude up from "idle" (which is a minimal voltage swing from about 0 to -0.5 volts) to "operating" you can see the mosfets turn on, and when the FG is directly connected not using the optoisolators the oscillations commence immediately when the signal is high enough for any response. I can put the amplitude all the way up (max negative excursion) but since there is a low impedance to the FG's output in the circuit, the voltage doesn't go way up, but the oscillations persist throughout the range of the FG's setting as long as the amplitude is enough to "tickle" the Q2 gates. In other words, I am operating just as you suggest in your second-to-last paragraph, as far as I can tell.

The purpose of the optoisolator trial is to try to figure out some way to operate the system without the FG's current path, while including the oscillations, since those are the only "magic" part of the behaviour of the NERD circuit (except how to get a 2 minute wave period from a FG that has a minimum frequency of 0.3 Hz). I don't think that the FG's path is absolutely required for feedback oscillations to happen; humbugger's excellent sims from last year showed that all you really have to do is "poke" the thing with a single short pulse and it will oscillate until the cows come home or the oxtail soup is done.

If it turns out that the FG's current path MUST be in the system, acting as a power source,  for the _claimed_ Ainslie battery charging effect to occur....   what does that tell us?

18 months of continuous testing every working day for 18 months as she claimed (12 Watts dissipated in the load) could have only used less than 4 times her total battery capacity anyway...... even if she really did dissipate 12 Watts continuously for 5 hours per day for 300 days.

So I think that you are trying to hold me to some standard that the Ainslie team certainly hasn't met themselves. You want me to reproduce a claimed frequency and pulse duty cycle that is clearly not within the range of the equipment they say they used.

(Although it IS within the capability of my Interstate F43, which can go down to... let's see.... 0.004 Hz x 10 on the knobs for 0.04 Hz, then use the .01f setting, we get 0.0004 Hz. What is that in period, I wonder? 0.0004 cycles PER one second == ? seconds per cycle, so we invert and divide, to obtain a period of 2500 seconds... can that be right?)

Right now, based on the heating and other behaviours of the Tar Baby, I can say this: operating the TAR BABY in full oscillation mode where I reproduce the gate and drain traces that Ainslie has _actually_ shown, not just talked about... there is very little power in the load and it doesn't warm up much. However, during "tuning" one encounters states where the mosfet(s) are cleanly switching AND states where the mosfet(s) are fully 100 percent of the time ON, and the load is exposed to the full voltage of the battery pack through a low-resistance pathway... hence it draws several amps of real current and heats up quite well.

It would be very surprising to me to find that a "real" NERD RAT device would behave differently, even with the magic mosfets and the magic signal generator. 
ETA: Also, the "efficiency" of the circuit as a heater is in question. When the circuit is operating in "oscillating" mode, how much of the power from the battery will be dissipated in the mosfet(s) and how much in the load? When the circuit is switched cleanly or is in "constant on" mode, how much of the power from the battery in _that_ case is dissipated in the mosfet(s) and how much in the load? This is a separate issue from the battery recharging issue... for which there is no _real_ evidence EVEN IN THE NERD RAT DATA as .99 and humbugger have extensively shown in their analyses.

I hope you don't mind, .99, if I attach your report here... maybe PicoWatt hasn't seen it.

[WilbyInebriated]

Your alternate FET's should work, but for duplicating as close as possible the waveforms and Fosc of the RA circuit, the PG50 would be a closer replication.  You should be able to swap them out with the 830's but the lower capacitances of those devices will flavor the results slightly.

careful... i tried telling tinsel-lokin the same thing years back... they all jumped on me and called me a troll. accused me of strawman. or maybe it was because i used the same tone with tinsel as he uses with others that got him so upset...

[TinselKoala]

careful... i tried telling tinsel-lokin the same thing years back... they all jumped on me and called me a troll. accused me of strawman. or maybe it was because i used the same tone with tinsel as he uses with others that got him so upset...

Ahh... I've been waiting for you to show up. I knew you would. This will be my last response to you and it consists of one question:

When will you show your Ainslie circuit replication charging up its batteries and boiling water?

Please don't return until you can answer my polite question above.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg310476/#msg310476

For the readers who may be interested, Wilby is referring to my prior work on Ains-lie's previous claim, the Quantum circuit and the claim of COP>17, with yet a Different circuit than is being examined here. For a short while, while my IRFPG50 mosfets were on order, I posted results from a 2sk1548 mosfet, and I stated that I would be surprised to find a significant difference between the two. Later when I actually DID have a PG50 for testing, I mounted the two transistors side-by-side on a huge triple-pole double throw slide switch so that I could switch them back and forth _live in the powered circuit_ for comparison purposes. I discovered that the 2sk1548 worked BETTER than the IRFPG50 in producing the high-voltage inductive spikes that Ainslie then was claiming were responsible for her alleged battery charging. I posted a note saying that I WAS surprised to find this difference..... but since I found no "overunity" behaviour from either mosfet, I didn't think it was a "significant" difference in the context. And I was right then and I am still right, but Wilby can't find anything else objectionable in my work so he's been stuck on that same single issue for YEARS.
(In that work I was the first to: identify the inverted duty cycle problem with her timer; show that using her timer AS PUBLISHED one could reproduce the time-temperature profiles she posted; boil water with the heat in the load; siphon off the "spike" using a fast diode and charge an external capacitor to hundreds of volts, running NE-2s and so forth on a 24 volt battery input; charge EXTERNAL batteries with a "fluffy charge", and many other of the reported effects of that circuit. And my batteries still measured 24 volts !! Lol. All this is documented and published in many videos on my YT channel. And all of it using BOTH the 1548 and the pg50 for comparison purposes.)