Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Guys - here's another one of those statements that we're meant to take on nothing more than good faith.  Like picowatt's statement that he trains under 6's in the art of 'soldering'.  Or that those same preschoolers have a functional intelligence which means - essentially - that they're adequately schooled in the 3 'r's to an acceptable and functioning adult level. LOL (by which I mean 'God help us).  And now - in the face of TK's latest numbers - we have picowatt essentially seeing an ever greater reliance on Poynty Point's argument related to the battery average.  And this is the argument that I will REALLY enjoy.  Because then both TK and our resident in 'expert' picowatt - will be obliged to prove some interesting features related to the circuit's open condition during the oscillation phase.  And then they'll try and infer that they have to explain things to me in words of one syllable - when we've already addressed this rather obvious end of the argument - at length in both our papers.  And they haven't even 'reached' that argument.  Yet.  TK hasn't understood it.  So he dismisses it as a 'word salad'.  In fact I don't think that TK even sees where the evidence is pointing.  picowatt's seen it.  But he ducks answering under the 'spin' that I'm too dull witted to understand anything at all.  LOL (By which I mean - what the hell)  But what is particularly offensive - is that 'expressed' regret.  Here it is again.

"Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct.  No one moreso than I wish it were not true.  Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring.  After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"? "

My dear picowatt.  IF you find that Poynty Point's analysis is correct - then you will most certainly need to justify it.  Which you will NOT be able to do within the context of classical and mainstream assumptions.  And IF you still do not see something 'unusual OR previously unnoticed' then the fault is NOT with the evidence but with your certain want of the required expertise to even understand that evidence.  And frankly - I rather suspect that you PREFER to INFER and for that matter IMPLY that there's nothing unusual - because you're rather hoping that no-one will see the evidence for themselves.  I need to disabuse you of any such hopes.  I will MOST CERTAINLY explain this for our readers - with an appropriate series of videos that I hope will clarify these points ENTIRELY.  These same points that TK is simply NOT able to address because he hasn't even seen them.  He's still busy doing a refresher course in reactive power courtesy R J Smith.  LOL (By which I mean - what an idiot)

Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

Around here, preschoolers are under five.

As I said in my answer to the first of the two questions you asked,  I gave you my "opinion".  You can no more argue against that then if you had asked "how do you feel".

As I have been weighing the evidence and the proposed reasons for the neg mean pwr measurement, the available data is, in my opinion, pointing towards .99's analysis.  I do not have to justify or prove that to you, quite the contrary, the onus is on you to understand his analysis and prove it incorrect if that is what you believe.

Many possible explanations have been given for the mean neg pwr measurement including skew, FG power, equipment grounding, etc.   Although some of these issues may in the end affect a battery run down test, the available data and the fact that TK is also able to produce a neg mean pwr, in my opinion, supports .99's analysis as it relates to the neg mean pwr measurement. 

You are not having to take anything at all "on faith".  I gave you my opinion.  If you do not believe .99's analysis or my support of it to be correct, then perform the test I proposed with the cap bypassed battery supply and additional lead inductance if needed.  Make a pwr measurement using the battery voltage as measured at the circuit terminals and another taken using the smoothed battery voltage.  If a neg mean pwr is indicated in both measurements, as I said, I will have to reconsider my opinion.  But again, the onus is on you to provide evidence against the most logical and rational explanation given to date.

I believe in the past you attempted to operate your circuit on capacitors instead of batteries without success.  This to me, further supports the fact that power is being drawn from the batteries and that the indicated neg mean pwr measurement is again, incorrect as per .99's analysis.

As for your second question, I have no interest in arguing with you about AC conditions and how oscillators function when we cannot come to agreement on the very simple, non-oscillation dependent DC conditions.  If you do not believe that in quiescent conditions, with the FG at negative offset, Q2 is biased on and passing current, with its DC return path thru the function generator, there is no need for further discussion.  And, quite frankly, I am just not interested in any more tortured discussions.

My interst in your circuit was purely with respect to the indicated neg mean pwr measurement.  To my satisfaction, the questions regarding that measurement have been answered.  As time allows, I may do additional testing to further confirm .99's analysis, but as of now, the probability is very, very high that .99's analysis is correct. 

If you wish to do additional testing that disproves .99's analysis, or do a battery run down test that far exceeds your battery's capabilities to run this circuit for 200-300 hours of operation, I would be interested in seeing that data.  (assumes 60V, 60A/Hr battery and 13 watt draw from circuit).

For now, and at the very least, TK's circuit's ability to demonstrate a neg mean pwr should be 100% solid proof that such a measurement alone, under the conditions made, cannot be used to support evidence of overunity or COP>1.

In the end, a "wire" is not always "just a wire".

PW

[TinselKoala]

@PW:

Ainslie said,

Don't you recall?  How picowatt posted - 'so you've gone ahead and built this.  Oh Well' - or words to that effect.  I'm relying on my poor memory here so the words are loosely transcribed.  But I knew precisely why he would have preferred that you DID NOT build that 555 switch.  I certainly did NOT expect you to go the lengths of powering it from the battery supply source.  But EVEN BETTER that you did.

Is that a true and correct representation of your feelings about my building any 555 circuits? Because I didn't realize that I was offending you so much. I apologize for doing Rosemary's homework for her. Whatever was I thinking?

And please do go on letting her believe that I powered a 555 "switch" from the battery supply source... when what I powered that way sends no switching signal to the mosfets at all.

[TinselKoala]

@PW: There is also one other possible interpretation and Rosemary seems to be endorsing it, if I can decode her latest logorrhea. And that is, of course, that Tar Baby is overunity and the batteries are discharging for some other reason... like aliens. Or perhaps the silver-calcium enhanced lead electrode chemistry is important for this circuit when it wasn't for the COP>17 one. Or maybe it's the table top surface.

Or the white pegboard.

After all, there are replications.... and then there are _replications_.

And I think I was eight when I learned to solder, taught by the neighbor across the street who sold crystal radio kits on the side, and by our next-door neighbor who was a retired Navy radioman and had a ham shack full of great stuff in his back shed. I was a slow learner, I guess. I built my first one-tube regen receiver when I was nine and assembled a 5-tube 5-band shortwave receiver from a kit when I was ten. And it's all been downhill since then.

[picowatt]

@PW:

Ainslie said,
Is that a true and correct representation of your feelings about my building any 555 circuits? Because I didn't realize that I was offending you so much. I apologize for doing Rosemary's homework for her. Whatever was I thinking?

And please do go on letting her believe that I powered a 555 "switch" from the battery supply source... when what I powered that way sends no switching signal to the mosfets at all.

TK,

To be honest, I have no idea what Rosemary is talking about in this post.  If YOU are asking ME if I am somehow offended that you built the inverting charge pump, of course not.  I can't for the life of me understand why I should or would be.

As for the "switching", possibly she was referring to the "switching" within the charge pump?  Just looking for the benefit of the doubt here.

PW

[TinselKoala]

She sees "555" and thinks switch.

Of course the 555 timer chip is functioning as an oscillator in the circuit. But the concept of a circuit that takes a positive 12 volt DC input and returns a negative 12 volt DC output must seem like magic to her, if she even believes it at all.

And perhaps "offended" was the wrong word. Worried, perhaps, that I might actually accidentally uncover the secret of  Ainslie Overunity (tm) and blow our covers as agents of the MiBs. Which I suppose I have done. Sort of.