Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

4. PW's queries about the possibly blown mosfet are important and have not been answered adequately by the claimant. The correct way to answer PW's points is to GET A KNOWN GOOD MOSFET, demonstrate that it is good, and then make the waveforms shown on the scope again. This would take 5 minutes to do, and is something like what I do all the time. Many times, someone has asked me a legitimate question or made a suggestion for a test or variation, and by the next day, sometimes within the hour, I make a video showing the results.  The claimant in this case has produced NO NEW DATA OR TESTING since over a year ago, yet there are many questions that could be cleared up in moments, with a cooperative attitude and a video camera.

Nor will I.  Any further tests done on our claim will be under conditions that make our arguments unassailable.  And that will involve considerably more tests than those that you DEMAND that we perform for you.  You seem to forget that I've already advanced evidence on prior tests - that were 'replicated' and then 'denied' by various members.  I am not about to HOP SKIP and JUMP again - until we have some kind of contractual undertaking to not have our thread either 'flamed' or 'locked'.  And that the evidence presented is then full and satisfactory proof of the claim.  Which requires some homework. And when this is completed - then we will bore you all to tears with copious evidence.

5. The claimant constantly misrepresents and mischaracterises my work, lying about it even. Examples of this are on every page of this thread where the claimant has posted, especially in the last few days. One of my videos of the CVR trace was even commented on by the claimant when it was first posted.... and yet now the claimant, lying once again, pretends that they are new. Most of the "questions" from the claimant have to do with her own misrepresentations and lies about my work... witness all the accusations and ranting about "10 ohm" resistors yesterday when I said no such thing in the first place.

You CLAIM that we have misrepresented the inductance and the wattage on our resistors.  I DENY THIS.  You make a song and dance about it because you believe you can thereby FAULT our claim.  It is IRRELEVANT to our claim.  What you're trying to do here TK is capitalise on any possible error without actually first establishing IF it is an extant error - and IF that error would, in any event make any material difference to our claim.  In other words you are using 'cheap shots' to underscore your points and to cast aspersions on our competence and on our claim.  Let me remind you.  Whether the resistance of those shunts are established at 0.25 Ohms or even 6 Ohms - or any value at all - the product of that NEGATIVE VOLTAGE MEASURED ACROSS THOSE RESISTORS WOULD STILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  That is the point of our claim.  Again.  Has this sunk in yet? 

Once again, I say that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD in the same testing.

IF your circuit is able to measure a negative voltage across your shunt - then you are INDEED in the right territory.  And THEN we would acknowledge that you MAY have replicated our claim.  Until then you MOST CERTAINLY HAVE NOT.  You have only ATTEMPTED THIS.  And failed. 

/...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

This is my claim: If the NERD device is "overunity" then TB is too, by the same measurement methods and analyses.

WHAT measurements?  WHAT analysis?  Your tests are conducted on scopes that make it IMPOSSIBLE to do the required detailed analysis.  And the only time that you DID use an efficient DSO you very CAREFULLY avoided giving any shunt measurements AT ALL.

Is this a claim of "debunking" or "replication"? Tar Baby has already done everything that the claimant's device has ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN to do. It is time for the CLAIMANT to stop obfuscating, and start demonstrating.  Let the claimant show that her device does something differently from Tar Baby.

Until I have finalised our agreement that you and your 'friends' CANNOT flame our thread - and that our thread will not be LOCKED or DELETED - then I will INDEED - begin setting up the required tests.  I have been bitten.  I know how you operate.  Courtesy you and your friendsy history related to our claim. 

If the claimant wishes to complain about what I'm doing with Tar Baby, the correct AND ONLY way to do it will be to show the NERD device doing something different than Tar Baby when tested in the same way. I have illustrated MANY possible tests and subtests.

So you keep telling us.  The TAR BABY is only a replication when it can REPLICATE our evidence of COP Infinity.  I am entirely satisfied that IF you've had that evidence - then you've been at some rather ponderous and transparently clumsy lengths to DENY THIS.  Therefore the TAR BABY is neither a replication NOR a debunk.  Unfortunately.

One that I would like to see right now is a confirmation of the 110 nanoHenry value cited for the inductance of the claimant's 4 ordinary 1 Ohm 10 Watt power resistors in parallel.... because my resistors of the exact same type measure 7 microHenry each. This is done on a meter that measures a known 1 microHenry inductor as 1 microHenry and a 1.5 millHenry inductor as 1.5 millHenry. In other words, the meter I used is accurate in the range used and with the measurement method I used, and I demonstrate  this for anyone to see, try for themselves and refute if they find something different.  The claimant claims that the shunt inductance of NERD is 110 nanoHenry. I question this because of readings I have made and I've asked the simple thing: for the readings to be repeated in an unequivocal manner. What is the response from the claimant? Post after post talking about some "10 ohm" resistors in her imagination and not a single responsive and substantive response. "Here's the part number of the special non-inductive resistors that look just like ordinary power resistors, and here's a video showing us measuring them on our fancy inductance meter, and here's the meter measuring a known inductance so you'll know the meter is being used correctly." That is the kind of response that a cooperative claimant would make, and that is the kind of response that I myself have made, many times. Checkable references, real data, repeatable tests, full disclosure.... these things are not forthcoming from the present claimant.

IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The inductance over the resistors vary with impedance.  And the impedance relates to the applied frequency.  If it is factored higher or lower then it makes not one whit of difference to our claim which is the evidence of a negative voltage across the shunt.  And that NEGATIVE will not change when it is factored in to the analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply.  Therefore this concern of yours is immaterial to our claim.  Do you even read my answers? 

A cooperative claimant would refute me with FACTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS in an afternoon. But all the present claimant can do is... claim. And this is just a single example of a subtest where Tar Baby and NERD could be compared.... if there was something that Tar Baby could be compared to.

To secure the co-operation of a claimant would require that your posts are not littered with the kind of language and abuse that would put your average criminal sociopath to shame.  One would expect a modicum of professionalism and courtesy.  Then INDEED you could complain if the claimant was not co-operative.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

I, as a builder and tester of claims, do not have to address random insinuating questions that the claimant tosses at me, I don't have to explain where I get my test equipment and I don't have to conform to anyone's schedule ... because I am not making extraordinary claims and I'm not applying for any monetary prizes based on my claims. IF I WERE.... then I would and SHOULD be expected to answer these kinds of questions and give these explanations. But of course the present claimant will not cooperate and instead wants to obstruct. Once again, my "claim" is that Tar Baby performs just like the claimant's device in all significant respects. If the claimant wishes to demonstrate otherwise.... that is up to the claimant, and the longer she delays the worse things look for her claims. I have demonstrated that Tar Baby does do everything that the claimant's device has actually been shown to do. It is LONG PAST time for the claimant to show that her device does something that Tar Baby cannot: heat a load without discharging its batteries.

You, as a builder and tester of claims - IF that's how you see yourself - need to get some fundamental schooling relating to power analysis - which is SORELY LACKING in your building and testing.  We keep asking for evidence of this.  You keep insinuating you have provided this evidence.  Where?  In those videos? 

At the beginning of this thread I stated what it was about and what my goals and purposes are. When the thread was reopened I stated the conditions under which the claimant was welcome to post here. Among those conditions was that no claims be made WITHOUT EVIDENCE, references, data, checkable and external. Another condition was that the claimant stop misrepresenting and lying about my work. Yet the claimant has chosen not to respect these simple and reasonable conditions and has continued with her campaign of insult, non-cooperation and active hindrance of the work going on here, while at the same time making NO progress at all towards her own testing. It would take three days to determine unequivocally whether her batteries are discharging.... in other words it could have been done several times already, had she only stopped talking and started working.

My WORK has been cut out defending the insinuations that you have made related to my claim.  When those insinuations stop then I will be able to devote more time to my own tests.  Do NOT think that I'll sit back and let you misrepresent - malign - abuse - and discredit 10 years of our hard work - while you present one spurious argument after another that our claim is void.  YOU have made this my full time concern.  Not me.

This is not the place to discuss the "theories" of RA. This is a thread about testing the Tar Baby and showing that it performs like the NERD device or doesn't. I've shown many tests and variations and I've shown that there are discrepancies in the data from the NERD device that I am comparing to. The correct way to deal with these is for the claimant to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong, if I am, by showing comparable tests and checkable, repeatable data. More talk, more claims without evidence, and especially reference to any "theory" or conjecture, is out of place and isn't helpful.

While I cannot reference our thesis then NOR is there in value in our evidence and our claim.  This requirement is ABSURD  and insulting to those many years and many hours of hard work applied to the thesis and to the proof of that thesis that is parcel of this CLAIM.  How DARE you assume the right to determine the basis of our claim?  Who do you think that you are that you can DENY the very foundation of our claim simply because you do not find it expedient?  Without that thesis - there IS no claim.  The experimental evidence was required to PROVE THAT THESIS.  NOTHING ELSE.

Let's see a simple photograph of one of the NERD resistors hooked up to an inductance meter reading 500 nanoHenry or less as the value, and another with the meter reading a known inductance correctly. For example.  I've shown a reliable reading of 7 microHenry on an apparently identical resistor, which calls into question yet another bit of data reported by the NERDs. This issue could be cleared up in moments.... and would be.... if there only were a cooperative and knowledgeable and skilful claimant involved. Instead the claimant bloviates for pages, insults my equipment, makes innuendoes and aspersions, and NEVER addresses the issue other than to resort to an appeal to authority and more claims without evidence.

I've argued this AT LENGTH.  Just go back and CHECK your facts.  This obsessive interest in the inductance of the shunts is ABSURDLY IRRELEVANT to our claim.

Regards nonetheless
Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Let me list some of the real differences between Tar Baby and the NERD device.

1. TB has the same medium-duty anodized aluminium heatsinks on all 5 mosfets. These are commercial heatsinks designed for the TO-247 package and heat-transfer paste is used and the mounting bolt is torqued to spec.
The NERD has the Q1 on a small apparently improvised heatsink and the Q2s on much larger, also apparently improvised hunks of finned aluminium. I can't tell whether heat transfer paste or electrical isolation was used. Since the circuit is a common-drain circuit, electrical isolation from the heatsinks isn't necessary, but thermal paste should be used.

2. TB has sockets on both ends of cables to connect the mosfets to the motherboard. NERD uses soldered connections at the mosfet leads themselves (a potential source of damage) and clipleads terminating onto threaded rods for the Q2 connections (a potential source of noisy, high-resistance contacts) , and crimped automotive ring connectors for most of the rest of the circuit (ditto).

3. TB has 4, 1 Ohm, 10 Watt power resistors in parallel as the current viewing resistor (called the "shunt" by the NERDs). These are ordinary "cement" type wirewound ceramic-encased power resistors of the common type, ubiquitous world-wide and clearly marked. They have a reliably measured inductance of 7 microHenry each and a total stack inductance of slightly under 2 microHenry, which includes some small lead length. The NERD device uses what appear to be identical resistors... they are even marked the same, except for the manufacturer... and they are listed as such in the NERD table of materials. But the cited inductance in the NERD non-publications is given as 110 nanoHenry.... a seemingly implausibly low value, not explained or confirmed anywhere.

4. TB has a load inductance, including lead wires, of 74 microHenry. A commercial water heater load apparently comparable to the NERD load also has a measured inductance of 73-74 microHenry. The NERD device load has a stated inductance value of only a few microHenry.... also implausibly low. It is possible that this load is indeed "custom built" to achieve this low inductance value. Considering the NERD team's demonstrated difficulty with measurements and calculations, I would like to see this measurement repeated reliably and confirmed... as I just don't believe it.

5. TB has been shown to discharge its batteries when running in modes that produce measurable load heating. No comparable testing has been shown for the NERD device.

6. TB makes no claims wrt COP or overunity performance, other than that when analysed by the same methods as NERD, the same results will be obtained. NERD, on the other hand, claims overunity performance, COP>INFINITY, load heating without battery depletion, and experimental confirmation of a theory with energy coming from superluminal zipons.

7. TB can use either IRF830a mosfets or the IRFPG50. NERD is limited to the PG50 -- but I'll bet it would work just the same and give the NERDs the same results if they used the 830as.

8. TB can use a 555 timer to make a negative-going gate drive pulse and so does not need a function generator. NERD has never demonstrated running using a 555 timer, especially not in the negative-going gate drive pulse mode.

9. TB is built compactly and uses small lightweight batteries, hence could fit within the criteria of the Overunity Prize.... if it were applying, that is. The NERD device is large and uses lots of big heavy batteries, and the rules would have to be stretched (not to mention credulity) to allow it to compete in the first place.

10. TB uses a small piece of commercial circuit board material for its motherboard, with 0.1 inch hole spacing. NERD uses a much larger piece of white material that looks like thick pegboard, with 1/4 inch holes on a 1 inch grid.

These are real differences. Do they make the difference? Well... that is what side-by-side testing is designed to reveal. Unfortunately it is difficult to perform side-by-side testing when one side simply refuses to show up for the tests.

In sports... this is usually considered a default victory for the team that DOES show up.

[TinselKoala]

If one measurement or value in a paper reporting an experiment is in error or somehow otherwise incorrect.... then every other measurement is also questionable. Ainslie has shown so many incorrect calculations, interpretations, misprints, typos, mistaken claims and outright lies that YET ANOTHER apparent discrepancy hardly counts. But what it does do is show the mendacity of the claimant, who has made many errors of fact and refuses to correct them.
The present insistence that they aren't claiming overunity performance, but only "measuring" it... when those measurements have been shown to be wrong (not by me, but by .99, in exquisite detail)... is another example of the prevarication that is Ainslie's trademark.

IF YOU ARE NOT CLAIMING OVERUNITY YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR AN OVERUNITY PRIZE. And IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR AN OVERUNITY PRIZE YOU ARE CLAIMING OVERUNITY. What is so difficult to understand about this simple fact?

And there are many places in these threads where you claim COP INFINITY or COP exceeds infinity or COP>INFINITY, even using the capitalization.
You have degenerated to the point where you cannot even maintain self-consistency.