Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

TK:

I am trying to remember - the viewing cycle for the rings, is it 22 years or something like that?  So if the rings are coming back does that mean the next seven or eight years will be good viewing years?

Can you see the rings with your naked eye live looking through the eyepiece of your reflector telescope?  I have always wanted to do that.

Just one more tidbit.  Lot's of us grew up excited thinking about the return of Halley's comet in 1986.  That turned out to be a big bust.  But my God, that comet in 1997.  I drove up north with a friend in an attempt to escape the light pollution.  Then we walked out into a farmer's field and looked up in awe.  I was just like I fantasized that Halley's would look like as a 10-year-old.  It was amazing.

I almost wish I had had the urge to go into astronomy during my university days.  It's an exciting time to be alive if you are an astronomer.

MileHigh

MH,

Saturn is really cool, but one's first glimpse of the Orion and Horsehead Nebulae is always very memorable, even in a small 'scope.  Easy to see, and just beautiful.
 
I miss the comets.  The one was visible here for many weeks.  Every night the tail was a bit different.  It became a nightly fixture in the sky and it was sad to see it leave!

PW

[picowatt]

TK,

What size is your Edge HD?  You probably said already...

So you pretty much use the Megrez just for AP?  Does that one have electric focus?

PW

[TinselKoala]

TK:

I am trying to remember - the viewing cycle for the rings, is it 22 years or something like that?  So if the rings are coming back does that mean the next seven or eight years will be good viewing years?

Saturn's orbit is about 29 or 30 years, but I don't know if the apparent visible  tilt follows that or not. Two years ago when I first started the rings were nearly exactly edge-on and were just opening up. Now they look like a picture in a book....

Can you see the rings with your naked eye live looking through the eyepiece of your reflector telescope?  I have always wanted to do that.

Absolutely. That's what I'm describing. The 9.25 reflector, the Baader Hyperion zoom at 12 mm... and I can not only see the rings but I can see the Cassini gap between the A and B rings, and even the fuzzier inner edge of the main ring that is the "C" ring sometimes, tonight. It looks very three-dimensional with the shadow play on the rings and planet. And I can make out some detail in the planet itself, cloud bands and contrast zones. That's rare for me on Saturn, the banding is much less distinct than on Jupiter.
The rings can be clearly seen in the refractor too, just smaller. If you can hold very steady, you can even see them as "ears" on the disk in binoculars, and think about what Galileo saw and sketched here.

Just one more tidbit.  Lot's of us grew up excited thinking about the return of Halley's comet in 1986.  That turned out to be a big bust.  But my God, that comet in 1997.  I drove up north with a friend in an attempt to escape the light pollution.  Then we walked out into a farmer's field and looked up in awe.  I was just like I fantasized that Halley's would look like as a 10-year-old.  It was amazing.

Yes, I remember seeing Halley as a tiny disappointing dot. But I saw it with a new girlfriend ... so it marked the beginning of an interesting period of my life, for sure. I never saw any of the other comets and haven't been able to see any with this kit yet although I have looked for a couple that I should have been able to see... but didn't.

I almost wish I had had the urge to go into astronomy during my university days.  It's an exciting time to be alive if you are an astronomer.

MileHigh

It sure is. In just the past few years, the quality and power of amateur instruments has really taken off. I can make photos that would have taken all season at a real observatory to make, twenty years ago, and do it in one evening (and the next day processing). With the computerized mounts you can see more in a single evening than a "manual" astronomer might see in a year, and with a lot less frustration and knob turning.
If you are ever near San Antonio in clear weather you are of course welcome to come and take a look! Wednesdays in good weather the San Antonio League of Sidewalk Astronomers (SALSA) meets at a park on the northside and one fellow has a 24 inch motorized Dobsonian... in its own trailer... that he sets up for the public to look through. You have to climb a ladder up about six feet to get to the eyepiece! Now that is a spectacular instrument.

[picowatt]

TK,

I went back a few pages... 9.25"

With mounts those guys are pricey.  The 11" and 14" look awesome for direct viewing (or AP).

You've got some impressive gear.

They have come a long way since my days.

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

At least TK is attempting a replication and responding to questions and requests for measurements from a circuit that also demonstrates a negative power measurement.  He is spending both time and money in doing so.  I am interested in gathering as much technical data as possible prior to an attempted replication.  Possibly you too would receive applause if similar discussions could be had with you, and requested measurements made from an operating circuit as discussions evolved. 

INDEED. I've already commented on this.  It's a very fortuitous series of events.  And on a purely personal level - I would be very sorry if the likes of you, MileHigh or TK EVER commented favourably on our tests.  Certainly NOT at the bar set by you lot.  It needs something considerably higher.

your comments? (not sure I got the whole quote in there) in the last, are emotion laden, defensive, and present a negative attitude towards most anyone who dares to ask a question.

I would be more than happy to answer any questions in a thread that is NOT full of slander and malice.  And INDEED, I'd be inclined to take such a thread seriously.  But not until then.

If your next experiments are going to be similar to the past wherein you set up a digital 'scope and select or discuss only the data that supports your claims without attempting alternate methods of measurement, or entertaining requests for alternate measurements, I see little change on the horizon.  Also, I respectfully recommend that you find a spokesperson with a bit more technical knowledge.

WHERE and what tests are you referring to?  I have no idea that we've ever done any tests for anyone at all other than our demonstrations.  Please refer to specifics.  And your recommendations are entirely unnecessary.  If there is any aspect of our demonstrations that requires your clarification - after or even during the event - then feel free.  Until then - kindly DO NOT presume what those demonstrations will contain - nor how they will be conducted.  And I'd thank you to reference some FACTS related to prior demonstrations where I refused to answer questions - if we're to believe that you're that 'partial to the truth'.

From what reading I have done on your other thread and in your papers, it appears you did not realize or understand that a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied from your FG, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG.  I believe you statements regarding the circuit continuing to oscillate with the battery "disconnected"  reflects your then lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates (no, there are not thousands upon thousands of ohms of resistance at an FG output).  Hopefully, from the discussions in this thread, you now have a better understanding of at least how the circuit works, how an FG can pass/provide current, and how to read a 'scope's screen.

You state as a FACT that the current is flowing through Q2 and the function generator resulting in a negative voltage.  I will entirely disabuse you of that opinion when we do our demonstration.  And I assure you that we will show you PRECISELY the same negative voltage with the use of a 555 switch.  And then you CANNOT use the excuse of the function generator enabling any current flowing through it.  Again.  Because we will show precisely the same results with the use of both the function generator and the 555 switch.  So.  No, is the short answer.  You must certainly have NOT enabled my 'better understanding' from your discussions.  If I were to understand your thinking I would first need to ignore the evidence.

I originally engaged with you in the hopes of having a technical discussion with you, but from this side of the fence, it is just too difficult to do so.  I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, or being misquoted, as a tool for use in an argument.  As well, when I used the word "review" in the most casual way, you went off on a multi-post tirade.  You constantly refer to and want your papers read, but apparently we are not to "review" them (or ask questions regarding them).

Thank you for reminding me about this.  I will repost that post because, yet again, those points have NOT all been addressed.  All you did was suggest that for 'review' read 'read'.  Anyone can read.  Very few are qualified to 'review'.  And to claim a 'review' one needs to at it's least advertise a qualification.  And the reviewed would expect courteous questions from the reviewer.  Not the assumption - as you paraded - that I was 'ignoring' your questions.  Hardly a constructive 'kick off' to a dialogue.  I do NOT put words into your mouth.  I did NOT misquote you.  I did NOT use you for a tool in an argument.  I simply pointed out that your comments were less than constructive, and by their sheer repetition were also less than courteous.

I for one can easily live without all the emotion and negativity.  I don't watch soaps or reality shows either!

So can I.  I am it's victim on a personal level and our work is it's victim on a general level.  I am NOT the one who is negative.  I am simply pointing out the baseless NEGATIVITY that is applied to me.  Yet again.  You do NOT seem to find any harm in TK's extraordinary level of abuse.  His license to say what he likes is absolutely endorsed by you all - notwithstanding common decency and notwithstanding forum guidelines?  My defense of it is absolutely NOT acceptable to any of you?  And I do NOT, like the rest of you, comment on any personal level at all.  I comment on the work.  And YET when I do argue in my defense,  you all take  UMBRAGE?  Exactly how partial are you?  And exactly to what 'truth'?  And do you think that our readers here are not aware of this excess partiality?  I am what would you call it? - upbraided? - for being negative.  And TK is held up as an example of what?  'positivity'?  politeness? respect? decorous address?  What exactly?  What about the vulgarity of that video where titled 'making out with a dog'?  That's acceptable?  Deserves no comment?  Or the fact that he 'debunked' without giving a single measured value related to battery duration?  Nor the value of the energy dissipated?  And you expect me to answer his questions?  Exactly why would you expect this?  Why am I required to be that 'deferential' in the face of his paraded abuse?  Because he's polite to you?  Is that really enough?  If so, then you too are applying double standards.  And I'm well aware of them.

If I can get past all the attitude, I will reread your posts, but my first skim through saw no valid arguments against TK's circuit and data.  The sample points issue will change nothing, that is easily proved, the phase shift in the scope shot I requested was only a triggering artifact, which I believed quite possible and is indeed why I questioned it.  I do believe the circuit can likely be further optimized to oscillate at a lower Q2 bias current than TK's, which I may attempt to do with my replication.

picowatt.  Don't read or comment on anything at all.  UNLESS it's TK's work.  I have NO faith in your impartiality.  When you can address TK's flaunted disrespect - then I will be more inclined to 'believe' you're partial only to the 'truth'.  From where I see that 'truth' is itself neither the truth nor is your reference to the way this thread is conducted even close to impartiality.  And for you to expect me to answer anything at all that TK writes is somewhat offensive.  He deserves NO recognition for his work nor his questions - nor anything at all - while he is incapable of exercising any kind of professional constraint.  He has shown a vulgarity of sentiment that is entirely inappropriate to decency and common humanity.  So.  How you can  then seriously propose that I take him seriously on any level at all when his best efforts are that abusive - I DO NOT KNOW.  Unless, again, you're not as 'impartial' as you're pretending.  Or unless you believe that his abuse is merited.  In which case you, like he, would be operating under questionable levels of conduct  and employing double standards with a flagrant liberality. 

But yes, all in all, my hat is off to TK for at least engaging the inquisitive and patiently making measurements if asked.  If you were more forthcoming in a similar fashion, you too might receive similar gratitude.

I do NOT want your gratitude.  I do NOT want TK's condolences.  I know full well that you see NO WRONG in the attitude TK flaunts - which is troubling.  And I know full well that you ONLY consider my arguments against his work as 'emotional' when they are NOT.

Regards,
Rosemary