Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

TK

I watched the vid, seems your osc ampliude is lower.  Not sure you will get a mean neg with that level.  Was it that low when you used the Tek?

PW

Those batteries are _flat_.  I wouldn't try to make much of casual estimates of magnitudes under those conditions. We'll know more once everything is recharged. It takes about 4-5 hours to recharge each battery properly using the Penske 706261 Automatic Charger. One is done, three to go for a running set, two more makes all six.

[TinselKoala]

WHAT?  It's like that thing where you keep talking to Leon?  WHO is Leon?  It has NEVER occurred to me that Hoptoad is you.  Why would you think that?  For starters I like hoptoad.   Admittedly he doesn't like either me or our work.  But who cares?  I get the general feeling that he actually DOES support OU.  Unfortunately he also has something of a crush on you - which means that he also admires bullies.  But there you go.  It's just one of the hazards related to your quality of posting.  It brings out the 'pack' in the animal.  LOL

Rosie Posie

It's really too bad that they don't have Google in South Africa.

One can really learn a lot from Google. If one knows how to use a computer at all, that is. Of course if one has to ask one's eight year old nephew for help to turn it on... perhaps needlepoint is a safer hobby. It will likely result in much less mockery from the audience.


"They're just questions, Leon."

Google returns About 27,700,000 results  (0.33 seconds)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=brI41rgDKdE

[poynt99]

TK, PW.

I would suggest that rather than decoupling across the entire battery array, that each battery receive ample decoupling. In fact, only one battery need be decoupled for this test. Assume all batteries are of the same SOC and internal resistance, and use only ONE for the calculation.

By decoupling only the batteries (and not the interconnecting wires between them), there will be no effect on the oscillations, they will persist. There won't be any need to add more wire.

Alternately, when they are fully charged, there should be much less AC evident across each individual battery, and therefore the measurement could be taken directly across ONE battery's terminals. This is what I would suggest be done first thing. To summarize, I would suggest the following TK:

1) With fresh batteries, confirm the neg pwr measurement by sampling VBAT from the load side of the battery line. This is the "reference" measurement.

2) Do you have a differential probe available? If so, take a VBAT measurement directly across ONE of the batteries, and do the power computation in the scope. If the pwr computation is now positive, then multiply by the number of batteries to get a final value of the whole battery array.

3) If the pwr is still negative, apply several high quality low value capacitors across this ONE battery. At 2MHz, a 0.47uF cap has a Z of 0.17 Ohms, 4.7uF has a Z of 0.017 Ohms etc. Don't bother with any electrolytics IMHO. If you can get about 10-20uF (the more the better) of high quality capacitance across that one battery, it should smooth out the AC quite a lot. Now do the same test as in 2).

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You're now getting excessively repetitive MileHigh.  I've warned TK about this.  It's likely to make people skim your posts.  You need to keep your observations 'fresh' - if you're intending to make some kind of effective 'dent' in my reputation.

Now.  Regarding this post of yours...

Word salad lite!  lol   Plus the "Laws of Induction" make an appearance!

I assure you that the function generator does NOT pass a current to the circuit.  It can ONLY induce a current flow.  If you don't know this then you should NOT be commenting.  It means that you've also been SEDUCED by TK's sad little overly simplistic video representations of current flow from a function generator.  IF the function generator passed any of its energy via current flow - directly to the circuit as opposed to passing an INDUCED current flow on circuit material resulting from an applied voltage on inductive and conductive circuit material - then it would be achieving feats of magic far in excess of over unity.  And it would then need to show the more remarkable proof of this by allowing less energy at its input than its output - as required by Kirchhoff.  And this point is NOT a nicety.  It's relevant.

Rosemary you are clearly demonstrating that you don't have a grasp of basic circuit analysis.  The simple modelling for a function generator has been used in this thread 500 times and you still don't have a clue.

It IS a simple modelling.  In fact it's SIMPLISTIC.  And it HAS been used.  Extensively.  In fact it's been over used and grossly abused.  But I don't think as often as 500 times.  And in any event.  It's still wrong.  And I have a reasonable grasp of the laws of physics which is all that's needed here.  It's your own and TK's and picowatt's knowledge that shows a want of understanding related to basic physics and the laws of induction.  Perhaps you too need that refresher course offered by RJ Smith.  It's all there.  Just go read it. 

Nor do you have a mastery of the five or six basic concepts associated with MOSFETs so you are unable to discuss how they work.  Even though you have been playing with a MOSFET circuit for years.

As ever, you and picowatt and TK rely on my abysmal stupidity.  While I, in turn, rely on that reliance. 

You couldn't grasp the basic power analysis concepts that Poynt tried to review with you a month or two ago.  The circuit was a single resistor connected to a battery if I recall correctly.

If and when I don't understand Poynty Point - I ask.  So far I've followed his argument very well thank you.  It's you who has NOT followed our argument. 

So where does that leave you Rosemary? I can tell you: You are not in any position to pass judgement on anybody with respect to electronics.  I note that recently we had a dose of your fake swagger also.

'Fake swagger?'  I like that.  You really do have the occasional MOST excellent turn of phrase.  But no MileHigh.  I'm too OLD to fake anything.  Unfortunately.

The only place that leaves you is empirical evidence.  You really and truly don't understand what is going on in your circuit on a basic electronics level so your only option is empirical evidence - do a round of dim bulb testing and leave it at that.  We'll join in the jamboree at the big batt test!

Good thinking and a good suggestion.  I'll oblige you all.  With pleasure.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear hoptoad,

I would urgently caution you against believing everything that TK 'insinuates, infers or implies'.  He's never allowed the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it - to pollute his argument.

That's hilarious ..... KneeDeep... I'm me ..... I think ?

So.  NO.  Not actually.  I have NEVER assumed that you are TK.  What I have understood is that you're certainly one of his rather uncritical acolytes.  And you'd probably do better if you applied those critical faculties of yours.  But feel free to 'laugh' - with or without reason.  Because that's always a good thing. 

Regards,
Rosie