Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes... PW... how do you explain (to Rosemary) those same things in MY data as well?

There you go picowatt.  How about it?  Even TinselKoala is asking this.  I am most anxious to read your explanation.

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

He's already explained it to you. .99 has explained it to you and demonstrated in his sim the exact same result. Mile High has explained it to you. I have explained it to you and demonstrated in Tar Baby the exact same result.

Hopefully he'll find a way to explain it to you that even you can understand.

But will YOU explain the features he's asked about, in a way that we will understand? Unlikely.

[TinselKoala]

If anyone is interested, Tar Baby doesn't need an external bias supply.

Using my 555 voltage inverter circuit to make a negative 12 volts more negative than the lowest battery negative, and feeding its output into the potentiometer circuit, one can make oscillations that look just like those made with the external bias source, including negative mean "wattage" product AND... something the AINSLIE crew has not shown ... a negative-going ENERGY INTEGRAL.

NO EXTRA BIAS BATTERY IS NEEDED as long as something like my 555 voltage inverter is used.

I'll show the evidence for this when I get home in a couple of hours, if I survive the drive.

And... since I have this NEGATIVE going ENERGY integral... that means my Tar Baby is actually putting out energy instead of consuming it. (Apparently).

And.... since I have it all packed up and ready to go, and since it is a lot closer to Stefan's size and weight requirement..... well, DO THE MATH.

[picowatt]

Let me remind you - starting with the last 'first'.
How do you explain a 'negative wattage'?
How do you reconcile the positive half of each half of that oscillation?

again
Rosie Posie

Rosemary,

The second question will be more difficult to answer.  As I have not been able reach agreement with you regarding initial DC operating conditions, discussion of AC conditions would be difficult at best.  So I will skip that question for now.

As for your first question, although I have not yet reached a 100% solid conclusion, I am indeed forming an opinion that is not far from reaching such a conclusion.

Some time ago it was proposed that the neg mean pwr measurement was simply a measurement error based on possible skew between 'scope channels.  Although plausible, that reasoning seemed a bit weak to me as the frequency of the oscillation is not very high.  Skew would likely only be a source of significant error at much higher frequencies, and 'scope probes and channels are pretty good at the low frequencies involved.  So, although plausible, I had serious doubts regarding this issue being the reason for the indicated measurement. 

As discussions progressed, I became aware of .99's sim data and analysis that demonstrates the neg mean pwr was the result of an improper indication of the true battery voltage due to battery interconnect inductance.  Of all the reasons discussed to date, this seems the most plausible.  When one looks at the battery voltage as indicated by the various 'scope shots, it is not reasonable to believe that the battery voltage is swinging as far positive and negative as indicated.  In order for a fully charged lead acid battery's voltage to vary to that degree, the battery must source or sink hundreds of amps (or even more).  If this were happening, that current would be indicated by the voltage across the CSR and by a glowing red load resistor.  It is much more reasonable to believe that the path to the battery is a high impedance path at the frequency of oscillation due to lead and battery interconnect inductance.  It is also, therefore, reasonable to believe that the indicated voltage, that is, the measured voltage being utilized for power calculations, is not the true battery voltage. 

As .99's analysis indicates, if the measured battery voltage numbers are replaced with the the battery's true DC voltage, the neg mean pwr measurements disappear and become a pos mean pwr result.

At this time, I believe this to be the most likely explanation.  TK has been able to construct a circuit that, while not an exact replication of your circuit, also indicates a neg mean pwr (an exact replication will be difficult to acheive by anyone due to several unknowns).  TK has graciously provided various measurements as requested that continue to support .99's analysis.  I have sugested an additional test to TK wherein the supply battery would be heaviy decoupled/bypassed with capacitors to eliminate all AC across the battery terminals.  If necessary, additional wire length between the battery and the circuit board can be added to replace lost inductance that may affect oscillation.  Power calculations can then be made by first using the battery voltage as indicated at the circuit board (with its AC component), and then second with the battery voltage as indicated at the decoupled/bypassed battery (which would be a smooth DC voltage).  If the first calculations demonstrate a neg mean pwr and the second calculations demonstrate a pos mean pwr, I would consider this highly supportive of .99's analysis.

Of course, if the mean pwr calculations remain negative using either battery voltage measurement, I will have to reconsider .99's analysis and adjust my opinion accordingly.

I am still waiting on the IRFPG50's that I have ordered, and if TK is unable to perform this particular test, I will do so when my parts arrive.

PW

[picowatt]

If anyone is interested, Tar Baby doesn't need an external bias supply.

Using my 555 voltage inverter circuit to make a negative 12 volts more negative than the lowest battery negative, and feeding its output into the potentiometer circuit, one can make oscillations that look just like those made with the external bias source, including negative mean "wattage" product AND... something the AINSLIE crew has not shown ... a negative-going ENERGY INTEGRAL.

NO EXTRA BIAS BATTERY IS NEEDED as long as something like my 555 voltage inverter is used.

I'll show the evidence for this when I get home in a couple of hours, if I survive the drive.

And... since I have this NEGATIVE going ENERGY integral... that means my Tar Baby is actually putting out energy instead of consuming it. (Apparently).

And.... since I have it all packed up and ready to go, and since it is a lot closer to Stefan's size and weight requirement..... well, DO THE MATH.

TK,

What's this all about.  Is this your original 555 and battery or did you construct an inverting charge pump for the supply?

PW