Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Now, in the case when the mosfet Q1 _is_ turned more fully on, like with seven volts or so, we see a different picture at the CVR with much higher current indicated.

[TinselKoala]

BUT... and this is indeed an "anomaly" that remains unexplained by Polly Parrot, sometimes when the Q1 gate is given a positive signal.... nothing happens. EVEN WITH 12 VOLTS APPLIED TO ITS GATE.

Groundloop, if you can replicate ZERO CURRENT flowing through your mosfet with +12 volts applied to your gate....

I'll buy you a new, working mosfet. And you can buy the beer.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary,

I still have my 10 Ohm 25 Watt resistor, so I'm going to test this setup this weekend.
I will use a mosfet and a 0,25 Watt RSHUNT also. Then I will switch the mosfet permanently ON
by using a constant -12 Volt DC to the gate. Since the circuit now is in DC mode, and the mosfet
in on conducting curren all the time, then I can measure the voltage over the 0,25 Ohm RSHUNT
with a normal simple volt meter. No need for a fancy o-scope to do that.

I will let you know how it goes.

GL.

You wrote " minus 12 Volt DC".
??

[Groundloop]

You wrote " minus 12 Volt DC".
??

TK,

I wrote wrong. I meant +12 volt positive bias on the gate to fully turn on the mosfet.

GL.

[TinselKoala]

EXACTLY.  And that's the only reasonable conclusion available.  But the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY.  And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments.  So?  Those instruments are NOT doing their thing.  OR we're dealing with anomalies.  That's PRECISELY why we've written those papers.  And that's PRECISELY why we need WIDE engagement by experimentalists who are actually attempting to get to the heart of the problem and not simply DISMISS them as is TK et al trying to do.  So FRANTICALLY, I might add.  And that's also why we will demonstrate ALL of these experiments  VERY PUBLICLY.  That way our papers will be deemed to have been published.  And that way our academics can engage in this discussion without the 'stigma' of dealing with 'false claims' related to a 'pathological science'.  Perhaps that explains our motives better?

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

No, actually Polly, that is NOT the only reasonable conclusion possible. Another even more reasonable conclusion is that you are misinterpreting your measurements.

You are confusing PRECISION with ACCURACY.  You are making very precise measurements indeed and nobody is contesting your MEASUREMENTS.  And I freely concede that your MEASUREMENTS are more precise than mine are, by some small percentage, perhaps in the third or fourth significant digit of a numerical result. That is the nice thing about digital equipment: it gives you precise results. Too precise sometimes, resulting in aliasing of displays, or long strings of meaningless digits after a decimal point in a computation.

Indeed your MEASUREMENTS are easy to reproduce in all kinds of systems and there is considerable literature explaining just why these MEASUREMENTS are obtained and why they are spurious. And this has been explained to you over and over by many many people--certainly far more than have ever come forth in your support, and even by your former collaborators.

But ACCURACY is a different thing from PRECISION. And your measurements are not ACCURATE representations of the quantities you desire to measure. Are you an archer, or a target shooter? It does no good at all to fire nice tight consistent groups or split one arrow with the following one ..... if you are hitting ten feet off to the right of the target you are aiming at.

You claim and maybe even think and believe that you are performing what you call "standard measurement protocols" on your apparatus. But in fact you are not. You are making an almost deliberately designed set of errors to obtain a specific result, and you have never actually done the definitive test of your battery's state of charge before and after operating your circuit.

Standard measurement protocols for such things do exist, in ASTM and IEEE and Agilent databases, and I have linked to a few of them. You choose to ignore them. That is willfull ignorance and arrogance of the highest order and you deserve strong chastisement for it.