Testing the TK Tar Baby

[WilbyInebriated]

of course i would. i told you i'll be there a long time ago didn't i? don't you see tinselkoala/alsetalokin... my righteous indignation at what you did to me, what you implied and what you lied about is directly proportional to your self righteous indignation at rosemary for what you accuse her of.

i wouldn't even consider it until you offer up that mea culpa you owe me from our last go 'round... you remember... the go 'round where i told you the same thing picowatt did about substituting whatever you have on hand and expecting it to be a "replication". and recall what happened when you did actually get around to SCIENTIFICALLY testing the difference between the two transistors. you found they didn't behave the same... and recall where you cursed and ran away and said you were "done".  you remember don't you? i do...

furthermore, i wasn't talking to you. i was talking to pico. so unless you have that mea culpa ready. don't speak to me.

for the readers that are interested: the record of what was said, which tinselkoala/alsetalokin doesn't want you to have the link to is here.  http://www.overunity.com/7620/claimed-ou-circuit-of-rosemary-ainslie/msg197621/#msg197621

Quote from: utilitarian on August 16, 2009, 09:59:44 PM

Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?

that wasn't the conclusion being posited by tk. he had concluded (apparently before he started his hack of a 'replication') it was perfectly ok to substitute a mosfet based on data sheets. i called him on it. he didn't actually voice this conclusion until page 2.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 08:13:03 AM

OK, several points to address.
    First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.

he then made an asinine hypothesis (see below for how that turned out) about the irfpg50 performance, never once specifying 'over unity performance'. i called him on it. he then asked if i could show how it would perform any different on page 11.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 08:28:24 PM

The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.

    Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

    If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

    If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


    (EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)

please take note of these words...
My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet.  Hers cannot be corrected so easily.
here he is referring to his claim of no difference in mosfet performance, let alone OU, and her claim of over unity which he was calling erroneous due to the duty cycle issue.
and these words...
significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used.
note no mention of over unity performance, just performance. why oh why do i have to hammer this in? oh yeah, the slow ones... and the liar.
they (tk and his merry band of sycophants) all jabbered for a while pretending how smart they are and then, asymatrix quantified it once again as being non relative to over unity performance by saying this on page 24.

Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 12:12:43 AM

Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.

tk did not amend this to being specifically relative to OU performance. while they (tk and his merry band of sycophants again) continued to jabber about how smart they are and how little i know, etc. i waited for him to get around to actually testing this experimentally. when he finally did, on page 42 i might add. he found this out.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 06:50:12 PM

The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
    The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
    I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.

    So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

take note of these words...
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that.

he did however, try to claim he 'meant' over unity performance later. much later. page 108 actually.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 07:07:38 AM

"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.

i called him on that too.

[picowatt]

TK,

I am not trying to hold you to "any" standard.  I merely thought replicating the circuit first and then modifying it would be a logical way to go.  I meant no disrespect at all.  And no, I have not watched all your videos, I'll try to find the time to catch up.

By applying the DC bias to the gate, the AC parameters change a bit.  Also, do you have a 50R or any resistor other than the CSR in the Q2 source leg to the batt negative?  Q2 will self-regulate its current based on the source resistor value used , the positive voltage applied to the gate (or negative voltage applied via the (50R) source resistor) and its threshold voltage (which varies with temp).

As I said, I doubt Q1 is being turned on at all.  One could possibly place a 50R in the Q2 source leg to the CSR and apply 12 volts to the Q2 gate via a 100K to 1meg resistor connected to the first 12 volt battery tap up from ground.  That will set the DC bias about right for Q2, but now the first battery is providing I bias as well as I load.  Also, the drain of Q2 would now have 12 volts less swing (headroom) available.  And again, AC conditions change a bit as the internal resistance and strays from the batt would now be in the DC and AC loop and I load will be inducing ripple in what would now be the bias source.  The large gate resistor value will, in concert with Ciss, decouple the I load ripple somewhat, but in the end, it sounds like it would be another oscillator to me.... again, just a different flavor.   

One could use a separate 12 volt battery and a 50R to apply the negative voltage to the Q2 source instead of the FG, but then the bias battery will eventually die.  Properly sized, it would allow the main batts to be tested for a proper rundown test to see if the batts do indeed "recharge" or "maintain charge" during oscillation.  Assuming a fair degree of feedback in the FG output amplifier, the AC impedance of the FG output stage is probably quite low, relative to the Rgen of 50R.  Placing a cap across the new bias battery would reduce the batt's AC impedance to closer simulate the FG.

As far as the FG recharging the batteries in the RA circuit, I don't see how that is possible.  Adding another battery in series with a 50R in its place will not charge the higher voltage batt bank either.  As to the current state of the RA batteries, based on her observed swings to zero volts, I suspect their internal impedance is quite high at this time.  Even without a load applied at all, they would have seen 18 months of self-discharge and subsequent loss of capacity (increased internal resistance).  The batt's open circuit voltage could still measure just fine.  It would be interesting to just hang a 10R across the batts and measure the drop in the battery voltage to determine their internal resistance.

Again, no disrepect intended... it's all good... 

More coffee and then back to work for me...


PW

[fuzzytomcat]

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?

Hi TK,

Actually the paper that was rejected five times in various versions was this one .....

Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems
R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch

( 23455916-Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems.pdf )

For the record ....

FTC

[picowatt]

Wilby,

Wow, you guys really need to bury the hatchet... life is too short.

You do have to give TK credit for being one of the first, if not the first, to identify the inverted duty cycle issue in the COP=17 circuit.  And, oddly, how that inversion, if the calculations are also inverted, produced a similar COP result.

But yes, I would typically replicate first and then modify second.  I am asked to improve on designs all the time, and I always start with what the customer is currently using to make baseline measurements to improve upon.

PW

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I am not trying to hold you to "any" standard.  I merely thought replicating the circuit first and then modifying it would be a logical way to go.  I meant no disrespect at all.  And no, I have not watched all your videos, I'll try to find the time to catch up.

No problem, I know you mean nothing more than to have an honest vigorous and constructive discussion. And you clearly have a better understanding of these matters than I do. I'm a psychologist, after all, not an EE.
Would you rather that I wait until I have all of the exact components in the lab before I begin work at all-- and where do we draw the line? I mean, if I had started with the PG50 and pegboard and clipleads all over the place, and obtained oscs immediately.... would we have learned as much as we know now? I don't think so.
My style, as you might have perceived, is not to attempt to PROVE anything. On the other hand, if I can't DISPROVE something....  see what I mean? I am applying the scientific method, and you can rest assured that I WILL reproduce the exact circuit down to the pegboard and clipleads, Instek and "aluminium heatsinks" and all, if that is what is _truly_ needed to examine the NERD RAT claims for accuracy and truth.
And there's really  no need to watch "all" of my videos... there are only about a dozen in the present Ainslie series and 40 or so in the previous 2009 work, out of nearly 200 videos of my scientific tinkering that I've uploaded.

By applying the DC bias to the gate, the AC parameters change a bit.  Also, do you have a 50R or any resistor other than the CSR in the Q2 source leg to the batt negative?  Q2 will self-regulate its current based on the source resistor value used , the positive voltage applied to the gate (or negative voltage applied via the (50R) source resistor) and its threshold voltage (which varies with temp).

I am using the exact circuit attached below, except that I am not yet monitoring across the CVR, I am using 0.1 ohms 5W "sand" resistor as the CVR, and I am using the 830a mosfet, as I still only have one PG50... which by the way oscillates fine in the "single mosfet" version of this circuit which is diagrammed-- but not shown--  in the Ainslie video demonstration.

As I said, I doubt Q1 is being turned on at all.  One could possibly place a 50R in the Q2 source leg to the CSR and apply 12 volts to the Q2 gate via a 100K to 1meg resistor connected to the first 12 volt battery tap up from ground.  That will set the DC bias about right for Q2, but now the first battery is providing I bias as well as I load.  Also, the drain of Q2 would now have 12 volts less swing (headroom) available.  And again, AC conditions change a bit as the internal resistance and strays from the batt would now be in the DC and AC loop and I load will be inducing ripple in what would now be the bias source.  The large gate resistor value will, in concert with Ciss, decouple the I load ripple somewhat, but in the end, it sounds like it would be another oscillator to me.... again, just a different flavor.   

I'm fairly sure I can get both Q1 and Q2 mosfets to turn on depending on the FG's settings. Usually alternately, occasionally simultaneously, mostly just one set during the negative gate drive mode. At least all the heatsinks can get warm ! I did manage to blow just two of the "gang of four" during an overheat event, and the single Q1 hs was quite hot at that time too.

One could use a separate 12 volt battery and a 50R to apply the negative voltage to the Q2 source instead of the FG, but then the bias battery will eventually die.  Properly sized, it would allow the main batts to be tested for a proper rundown test to see if the batts do indeed "recharge" or "maintain charge" during oscillation.  Assuming a fair degree of feedback in the FG output amplifier, the AC impedance of the FG output stage is probably quite low, relative to the Rgen of 50R.  Placing a cap across the new bias battery would reduce the batt's AC impedance to closer simulate the FG.

A real problem here is that test results should be unambiguous enough and with transparent enough methodology that the "main suspects" can't hand-wave their way out of the conclusions, as they have so many times in the past. I've even, in the very first setup of this circuit that I did using 2n7000 mosfets--nice oscs there btw, see the video-- I coupled the FG to the circuit using a series cap--- which passed the gate signal fine, switched the mosfets "normally"... but killed the oscs completely.

As far as the FG recharging the batteries in the RA circuit, I don't see how that is possible.  Adding another battery in series with a 50R in its place will not charge the higher voltage batt bank either.  As to the current state of the RA batteries, based on her observed swings to zero volts, I suspect their internal impedance is quite high at this time.  Even without a load applied at all, they would have seen 18 months of self-discharge and subsequent loss of capacity (increased internal resistance).  The batt's open circuit voltage could still measure just fine.  It would be interesting to just hang a 10R across the batts and measure the drop in the battery voltage to determine their internal resistance.

In one of the recent videos I show the FG charging a small battery a little bit, but definitely doing so. But I now realise that it doesn't have to... since there's no evidence of battery recharging in the NERD data when it's examined closely. I agree, a proper and simple load test on her batteries would be revealing but we both know we will never see that done -- on the NERD device at least. Also I'd like to know how two of them "caught fire" as she claims.

Again, no disrepect intended... it's all good...

More coffee and then back to work for me...


PW

And I never thought you were being disrespectful at all. You have constructive criticism and suggestions and you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm not afraid of looking stupid and I do take correction when the correction is correct. Trolls who make distorted comments about nothing at all pertinent, and who have never demonstrated possession of opposable thumbs much less technical prowess, on the other hand, I cannot abide at all.

ETA: oops, I forgot to attach the circuit. Sorry... here it is:
(I can also place in or out a series resistor of 0.3 ohms between the FG + and the gate, because a resistor was shown here in one of Ainslie's many diagrams of the demonstrated circuit.)