Testing the TK Tar Baby

[WilbyInebriated]

I owe you nothing but the disrespect you have so competently earned, you effete pseudointellectual slob, Wilby. And if you check very carefully, you will note that the name calling was indeed initiated by your idol, long ago. I always reserve the right to respond in kind, troll idiot thumbless Wilby.

LMFAO  only effete people use the word effete...

and i'll take your tacit refusal to demonstrate your accusation of ad hominem as your admission that you cannot and that you were once again wrong...

[WilbyInebriated]

this serving you logic lessons is getting boring...

let's settle this the old way. a duel.
what shall it be? guns? swords? hatchets? fists?

unless you're too effete...

[TinselKoala]

Okay, I got that, makes sense.Is BEMF a negative current source? Off topic?

That is a tar baby all its own. BEMF is an EMF, that is, a voltage. For a current to exist there must be a circuit. BEMF is a consequence of changing magnetic fields, conductor geometry, and the relationships ensconced in Maxwell's equations. It exists, it can be helpful or harmful to one's efforts depending on what they are. It can produce real currents if it can be channelled into a complete circuit. It is a voltage that acts to oppose the applied voltage, and as such you could describe any currents it makes as "negative", I suppose. The energy in "BEMF" comes from whatever is providing the forward EMF in the first place, ultimately, so if you drain it off with a diode and use it to charge a capacitor, that energy in the capacitor came from the original battery or other primary energy source.

I was going to ask about using lower bandwidths but it seems like the oscillations won't allow it? That is to say they don't start until they get up in the MHz range?That is the part that I have a tough time with;the circuit affecting the FG. You just want to get those oscillations without the current coming from the FG. Would that be (closer to) OU then?

The FG isn't necessary. Do you remember the feedback squeal that happens when the microphone is too close to the speakers of a PA system? It's pretty much the same pitch tone, for a given system. That is what is happening in the circuit. The frequency of the oscillations is fixed, controlled by the inductances primarily and the total battery voltage secondarily. (This latter may also just be because of the inductance.) The only requirement for the circuit to oscillate is the application of a negative DC voltage of 4 or 5 volts or more to the "RED" point on the schematic (the gate of Q1 and sources of Q2). Closer to OU?  I'm not sure what that means. The oscillations are "enabled" by the FG, they are powered by the FG and the main battery acting in series, and as far as I can tell they are actually very wasteful, in that they prevent power from actually reaching the load effectively. I can't identify any cases of high load heat in the Ainslie data that relied on the oscillations alone for load heating.

I can see the logical deduction behind looking at the screenshots and the mosfet not passing anything because it was blown. It makes sense. Since those shots are using different settings at different times (connected how using which diagram?) there is only so much you can deduce from them, but it seems like Occam's razor is right again.
So you built a circuit based on available data to try to recreate those scope shots (or at least those robust parasitic oscillations). Not the same, but it does the same thing (only better) right?

No. I built the circuit given in the Ainslie schematics to examine its behaviour. The only guide I have is the published schematic(s) and the scopeshots and the _realtime_ accounts of the trials themselves. I do not trust any other "data" or "report" from Ainslie and the NERDs because they are so riddled with clear errors that it is impossible to trust anything but the raw data.
Not surprisingly, I have found that the same circuit, built with the same components and stimulated in the same way, does produce scopeshots that look like Ainslie's, including the calculation of a negative mean power product, as WELL AS a decreasing total energy integral during the run.... a level of "proof" of the negative power that exceeds the NERD team's mere mean product.
And as far as I can tell without having the cooperation of the original claimant, the Tar Baby performs JUST LIKE the NERD device in all significant respects, and is ready to prove it in side-by-side comparisons done by that impartial observer WilbyInebriated, just as soon as he can arrange it. Or anyone else who Stefan might think is qualified and who will test NERD at the same time, side by side. 
However.... I now suspect that the original claimant might still be misleading us about the exact schematic used and about the exact parameters of the gate signal used. And this might be why she is so insistent in her denials that Tar Baby is relevant to her claims. If this turns out to be the case...... well, I'm sure you can Do The Math on that one.

Great research! The 'hot oil' calorie testing is really going that 'extra mile' to get reliable numbers, the sort of thing that allows accurate measurements, etc. Certainly better than the testing and measurements done on that 'other' circuit...
I can see that you understand more than RA does about it, anyone can after reading the technical posts and watching your vids. Honestly I would be amazed if RA understood some of those conversations with PW and .99!! (You will notice she stayed out of some of those entirely...)
Whenever a woman starts to call a man 'little' with the intention of insulting his 'stature' (intellect, whatever...), she is 'scraping the barrel'. She can't even argue her circuit anymore, you've already analyzed it three ways from Sunday compared to what she did with it... Sticky sticky...

The reason she chose that particular adjective was a fishing expedition initiated by one of her pet trolls. She believed -- likely due to his prompting -- that she had me identified as another Texan, living not too far away from me, to whom the word "little" might have a special meaning. (don't tell that windbreaking wilby, but this is another _conjecture of mine).

And now for the poke of the day...

@ Rosemary: Is a Joule still a Watt PER Second and are you EVER going to do the DBT?
@ Wilby: Why don't you start your own research thread? Build your own circuit since you are such an intelligent individual. A troll doesn't start a thread, build things, make videos, etc., a troll spams threads and does NOTHING to advance anything. IF you tricked TK into giving you his address for ulterior purposes, you are a jackass. Shame on you TROLL! Post something relevant to the topic or go post somewhere else...
@ TK: Don't waste your time on that guy, you have better things to do!

Just getting my daily dose,
PC

P.S. For my two cents, that letter is NOT from an attorney, it is a fabrication from RA herself. Her style of 'prose' is pretty distinct (after you read a hundred of her posts anyways...). It also doesn't really SAY anything, which is also her style...

Yup.

[TinselKoala]

Googling "non sequitur troll" I get about 900 thousand hits with "WilbyInebriated" in them. There is even a WikiPedia page (see below).













(The 900 thousand hits part is sarcasm, not a claim of fact, wilby you overly literate tweed-wearing scofflaw's dirty sock you. That the Wiki page and the Answers page demonstrate Ainslie's fallacious reasoning and bogus claims is fact, not a claim or sarcasm.)

[TinselKoala]

this serving you logic lessons is getting boring...

let's settle this the old way. a duel.
what shall it be? guns? swords? hatchets? fists?

unless you're too effete...

Another physical threat, Wilby? Or more sarcasm from the addled brain of someone who doesn't know when to quit digging his own latrine?

Any time, any where, loser pays for the hospital expenses and the bail bond.