Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

All that 'spin'.  LOL.

I've just read through the last 10 posts or so in answer to my one.  It seems I must put out 10 times the effort - when - in FACT - I only need the occasional post.  Thank you God.

picowatt - Leon - FTC - ALL - you're wasting your time.  I'll disprove EVERYTHING that you claim is conclusive.  And - to boot - it's EASY to disprove.  That last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection.  He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator.  He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold.  The oscillations DIE.  And what does he claim?  That the the function generator IS supplying energy.  IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE.  Self-evidently.  It's all spin and heavy applications of too much tar.  And it relies on the utter stupidity of all the readers here. 

He's the only guy that I know who can claim a DISPROOF - through the circuitous route of demonstrating its PROOF.  And the joke is this.  They all aver that I've 'missed the point'.  Just watch the next 10 posts or thereby.  LOL.   Long may that last.  Fortunately our readers are NOT the idiots that they - that gang of vigilantes - hopes.


Rosie Pose.

What the hell are you talking about? THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED IN THAT VIDEO.
NOR HAS THERE BEEN IN ANY OF THE TAR BABY TESTS FOR MANY DAYS.
The capacitor REPLACES the energy supplied by a function generator IF IT WERE THERE. Since the capacitor runs down THE CIRCUIT IS DRAWING POWER FROM IT.

Do you have something wrong with your comprehension? You really should learn to pay attention.

THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR to keep the capacitor charged. The capacitor DISCHARGES because it is supplying the BIAS CURRENT that is needed for operation.

SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY or shut up.  Your words have no value or credibility. SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT doing something differently than TAR BABY. You cannot.

Once again, Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects INCLUDING THIS CAPACITOR TEST and is ready NOW to prove it, side by side or remotely. Your bluff has been called, Ainslie, it's time to lay your cards on the table and PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.

Like our host has asked you to, several times, many pages ago.

[picowatt]

All that 'spin'.  LOL.

I've just read through the last 10 posts or so in answer to my one.  It seems I must put out 10 times the effort - when - in FACT - I only need the occasional post.  Thank you God.

picowatt - Leon - FTC - ALL - you're wasting your time.  I'll disprove EVERYTHING that you claim is conclusive.  And - to boot - it's EASY to disprove.  That last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection.  He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator.  He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold.  The oscillations DIE.  And what does he claim?  That the the function generator IS supplying energy.  IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE.  Self-evidently.  It's all spin and heavy applications of too much tar.  And it relies on the utter stupidity of all the readers here. 

He's the only guy that I know who can claim a DISPROOF - through the circuitous route of demonstrating its PROOF.  And the joke is this.  They all aver that I've 'missed the point'.  Just watch the next 10 posts or thereby.  LOL.   Long may that last.  Fortunately our readers are NOT the idiots that they - that gang of vigilantes - hopes.


Rosie Pose.

I do not think the readers are idiots, quite the contrary, I am sure they are all quite smart enough to see the truth and understand the electronics discussed.

I make an effort to ensure that all my technically related posts are clear, concise, and accurate, so that they can be understood by most.

LOL back at ya',

PW

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

That last video by TK's is a PRICELESS effort at misdirection.  He claims that there is a current flow from the function generator.  He therefore replaces the battery supply with a rechargeable CAPACITOR - and lo and behold.  The oscillations DIE.  And what does he claim?  That the the function generator IS supplying energy.  IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE.  Self-evidently.

At this point you are just a hopeless hapless nit-wit.  You are talking to very knowledgeable people here and you are simply too stupid to have the good sense to listen to what they are saying and try to learn something.

IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would NOT DISCHARGE.  Self-evidently.

Self-evidently NOT.  Another "mind tied to your behind" incorrect ASSUMPTION from you.

The capacitor is emulating the function generator.  Therefore if the capacitor discharges it is outputting energy - ergo the function generator outputs energy.

i.e.; IF the function generator WAS supplying energy - then the CAP would DISCHARGE.  Self-evidently.

Since the CAP is DISCHARGING - then the function generator IS supplying energy.  Self-evidently.

You are simply hopeless Rosemary.  You don't stand a chance if you run another round of tests by yourself.  It's going to be a train wreck.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Leon,

What the hell are you talking about? THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR USED IN THAT VIDEO.
NOR HAS THERE BEEN IN ANY OF THE TAR BABY TESTS FOR MANY DAYS.
The capacitor REPLACES the energy supplied by a function generator IF IT WERE THERE. Since the capacitor runs down THE CIRCUIT IS DRAWING POWER FROM IT.

Do you have something wrong with your comprehension? You really should learn to pay attention.

THERE IS NO FUNCTION GENERATOR to keep the capacitor charged. The capacitor DISCHARGES because it is supplying the BIAS CURRENT that is needed for operation.

SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY or shut up.  Your words have no value or credibility. SHOW YOUR CIRCUIT doing something differently than TAR BABY. You cannot.

Once again, Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects INCLUDING THIS CAPACITOR TEST and is ready NOW to prove it, side by side or remotely. Your bluff has been called, Ainslie, it's time to lay your cards on the table and PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.

Like our host has asked you to, several times, many pages ago.

You have a function generator in series with a regulated power supply.  You have a capacitor in parallel to the that regulated power supply. You then DISCONNECT the regulated power supply.  The only other POSSIBLE source of energy is from the function generator.  IF the function generator was supplying energy to the circuit then it would REPLENISH the cap and the cap would NOT discharge.  Since the oscillations DESIST then there is self-evidently NO CURRENT FLOW from the function generator.

Rosie Pose.
In FACT - now that I see that blocking diode at the function generator - you've actually disconnected the circuit from ANY supply at all.  Which makes the ENTIRE test somewhat absurd.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Surely you know I intended sarcasm with the "why did you build the inverting charge pump" remark.

Possibly you should just consider an additional battery in the battery string, using the additional battery as a negative voltage source.  You could tap the first battery above ground for +12 volts and you would then have plus and minus 12 volts to work with.  You could run a 555 off the ground and -12 supply and run the output to an NPN (or another MOSFET) with the emitter (or source) tied to -12volts.  A pullup resistor of 10K or so can be connected between the collector (drain) and the +12 volt supply tap.  Use either 50R from the collector (drain) to the Q2 source and Q1 gate.  You can vary the 50R for your Q2 bias point and Q1 will always be fully on.  All bias current will flow thru the NPN (or MOSFET) so heat will be less of an issue wrt the 555.  Turn on/off will be a it slow with the 10K or so pullup but at the long cycle times, probably not an issue.  A lower value pullup will speed things up but at the expense of increased quiescent current. 

You could use a similar supply scheme as above and make an astable out of an opamp.  Pick an opamp that can handle the plus/minus 12 volt supply (555 can't).  You can use low power duals or quads and use the last opamp stage with a NPN/PNP output buffer to handle the current and keep rise/fall times fast.   

You can do the same things with your inverting charge pump for the minus supply, and if your 555 circuit almost makes enough current, you can always parallel a pair.  I would stay with individual 555's as opposed to a 556 dual though as heat will be an issue.

Just a few thoughts,

PW

Yes, I got that, and I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to explain again, but clearly the concepts are too abstract for YKW.

Putting another battery  in the string is essentially what happens when I use any external bias source. The 9volt battery for example. The Bias source is only separated from being in strict series with the main battery's negative pole by the 0.25 ohm CVR... which is negligible compared to the equivalent series resistance of the battery itself, I should think. So really, any negative bias source acts as if it were another battery in the string, attached with its positive pole to the main battery's negative pole. (Through that quarter-ohm of course.)
But that's too easy and it would seem that the extra bias battery has no way at all of experiencing the "ainslie effect" so that it stays charged up. That's why we would like to run strictly on the main batteries alone, if we are to have any hope of powering our black Buick's inertialess drive with the Ainslie effect. Can't have batteries going dead in the middle of a suppression operation, now can we.

But I'll probably wind up doing it just as you say. I like using 2n2222as in the little metal cans, they are so "transistor" like. Or even 2n7000 mosfets, I have a handful of them, but they don't look as cool as the 2n2222as.