Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Magluvin]

Rosemary,

Do you even use a third chassis connected ground conductor in SA for your AC distrib system?

Some countries don't.

PW

Are there any cases where Lecroy recommends not having the ground connector attached to a ground during use of the equipment? If so, then I would recommend following that procedure. ;]

Mags n The Moonies

[TinselKoala]

 

In order to use the LeCroy without the 'ground pin' - which is to satisfy you that we do NOT have grounding issues - I've been obliged to buy that instrument.  This has cost me upwards of R30 000.00 at a HEAVILY discounted price.  Again about $4 100.00.  Because it's now my personal property we were obliged to get it calibrated.  And not as TK thinks of calibration - by simply standardising it's measurements against other uncalibrated machinery - but properly done - through registered calibration laboratories.

Right. Uh-huh. You damaged that instrument and that's why you had to buy it. And also... as soon as you hook it up to your circuit along with your function generator.... it is grounded just as surely as if you hadn't cut off the ground plug. And how does owning an instrument now "oblige" you to get it calibrated? That's just silly. You damaged the instrument and had to get it repaired and RE-calibrated.


And... Rosemary.... the calibration I showed of my current measuring meters and my scope was COMPARING TO OHM'S LAW using a known resistance, measured with a CALIBRATED ohmmeter and voltmeters that all agree with one another and with CALIBRATED instruments. You can't get around OHM's LAW.

How do you think a calibration laboratory calibrates an ammeter, anyway? By waving a magic wand and sticking a little sticker on the instrument?


WHEN WILL YOU RESPECT OUR HOST'S WISHES AND POST YOUR OWN WORK?

Never. You aren't going to do any real tests, this we know, so all your money is wasted.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Good lord you are so deeply involved in this, it's not healthy at all.For starters, the definition of "Tar Baby:" That's the first definition that comes up in the Wikipedia article and anybody reading this thread can see TK's wit in action.  So all of your talk about South African history can be dismissed out of hand.

We are ALL aware of the Tar Baby reference.  But that the baby is 'TARRED' in the first instance is the point at which this analogy becomes ENTIRELY unacceptable.  And while you may find it amusing - there are those of us who find it INTENSELY offensive.  But lacking, as you all do, those common decencies - then it is understandable that you see this as evidence of TK's WIT.  It is my opinion that is it's proof of TK's entire lack of social conscience.  So what does that make your approval of it?

As far as your expenses go, you are making a serious mistake.  You mention $1000 USD for a multimeter?  Now _that's_ crazy. All that you need is to borrow an ordinary scope and get a $30 multimeter.  Or buy a used scope on eBay.  Buy six new small batteries for perhaps $40 each so that's  $240.  Buy a cheap battery charger.
Then do a dim bulb test after you confirm that you see your "magic delicious oscillations" on your scope.  That's it because it will be game over, just like TK showed you with the Tar Baby.

Were we to do tests at the level that TK does his tests - then we would have NO VIABLE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT.  Any more than TK has an viable scientific argument.  All the Tar Baby tests depend on really bad measurement.

The most important question is as follows:  Does you circuit have any merit?   The answer is NO, it has no merit at all.

THAT is your opinion.  And opinions have no relevance to science.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

Your circuit is a bloody joke.  It's a Grade Six Science Fair project gone nuts.

Again.  That is your opinion.  And now you're regressing to invective and slander.  We need to show you results.  THEN it would be appropriate to pass an opinion.  Until then you are indulging in 'prophesy'.  That has NO PART OF SCIENCE.  And you're indulging in 'slander'.  That has NO PART OF DECENT DISCOURSE

I give Stefan lots of credit for allowing all points of view about your "project" being expressed.  Some seasoned people with a lot of experience in analog design engineering have weighed in on your device and expressed their learned opinions of the experimental data presented so far.  They have made a valuable contribution to the forum and the readers of the forum are much better off and better informed because of it.

Of COURSE you give a lot of credit to Stefan for allowing your points of view about our project.  LOL.  The most of us are still puzzled as to why you and FTC were allowed to move off moderation - if it wasn't to advance your spin.  It's a source of some considerable concern.  To many of us.  But you have both of you AND picowatt for that matter - HAD very lengthy discussions.  Including the fact that the Q2 source leg is connected to the battery supply's negative terminal.  Including the fact that the capacitance over the MOSFET discharges through the battery supply and then 'DISSIPATES' its energy - somehow - at the load.  And sundry other easily disprovable claims.

So you are not likely to get very far with your requests for censorship.  And some people with a world of experience that you don't have are going to express their opinions and that's tough luck for you.

I have NEVER asked for censorship.  I have asked for a DELAY.  That I can spend my time more constructively than dealing with your 'spin' - your 'tarring' with that 'tar brush' that you're all so proud of applying.

You can spend as much of your money as you want and it's not going to make one bit of difference.  Your batteries will show the truth in the dim bulb testing.  You don't need any academics to endorse these tests.

It will make an ENORMOUS difference.  It will advertise the efficiencies related to the COP>17 test that we KNOW will be greater than COP>17.  And we will run our own NERD circuit under strict comparative draw down tests so that we will then LEARN if there is any efficiency.  And having completed that very public demonstration - then the convention will allow that those papers of ours will be deemed to have been published.  And then academics will be able to 'engage' without the stigma associated with claims that are NOT published.

Like I stated before, you wouldn't last more than 15 minutes in an interview with an academic anyways.  No electrical engineering professor would take you seriously when they soon realize that you don't even understand how your simple circuit works and you are unable to express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy concepts.

And like I've stated - many times.  We are actively engaged in conversation with academics - and always have been.

Just go buy some small batteries and run your tests and confirm TK's results.  That's basically where you are at, replicating and trying to generate as much data as somebody that replicated you.  You have lost the leadership position and find yourself confirming someone else's results that the circuit doesn't work.

You wish. 

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

Leon - that's so much better than TK.  Is that your name?  I've always wondered.

The calibration labs compare the performance measurement to proven values.  Your own calibration exercise in standardising your measurements were a joke.  I gave you the example.  You can calibrate your watch to Greenwich Mean Time.  You cannot calibrate it to synchronise with your neighbour's watch.  What you did was calibrate it to ?  I'm not sure which of your instruments.  They are all as likely to be as faulty as the next.

Rosie Pose

I most certainly can calibrate my watch to my neighbor's watch, or to his water clock or his candles or to how often his dog barks. If you understood the meaning and process of calibration you wouldn't make such silly statements. Synchronization is neither the point nor the process of calibration. Have you ever encountered a calibration graph or a nomograph? No, of course you haven't.
I can trace the calibration of ALL my instruments back to NIST standards -- and you don't even know what that means.

I don't have official calibration stickers on SOME of my instruments because I don't need them... but the accuracy of my instruments is easily verified AND I WILL PUT IT UP AGAINST YOUR OFFICIALLY CALIBRATED INSTRUMENTS AT ANY TIME, subject only to the constraints imposed by my lack of "numbers in boxes". Go ahead, measure the current pushed through a 10 ohm resistor by a supply of 10 volts, and see if you get some other result that I don't get.

And to top it off... NOBODY has ever questioned the calibration of your instruments. Just as they never questioned the calibration of MYLOW's vernier caliper, when he used it to measure his magnet positions. Perfect garbage into a perfect garbage truck will still be perfect garbage when it comes out.

NO INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION IS NECESSARY... no instruments are necessary, in fact. Just hook your circuit up to some batteries, let it run for a reasonable time, then TEST THE BATTERIES USING THE DIM BULB TEST.