Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

@MH:
I actually have a couple of real current transformers and Rogowski coils, but the frequency range isn't what we really need. Your little coil will work fine just as you expect, I expect.

Meanwhile I've been involved in some other things, getting ready for the transit of Venus on Tuesday afternoon. Here are a couple pix of Luna taken over the past couple of days, taken with the same kit I'll be using to photograph the first part of the Venus transit (except the solar filter, of course!)
I need to make sure my battery power packs are charged and all other ducks in a nice row, because I need to go to a different spot with my gear on Tuesday -- no power available -- to see the Western horizon where the action is.

[MileHigh]

TK:

Pretty awesome pics!

As I am sure you know with all of the satellites in orbit around the moon nowadays they have imaged some or all of the lunar landing sites and you can even see the the trails left by the astronaut's footprints!

So that either puts a damper on the moon landing conspiracy theorists or it's a new layer on top of the original conspiracy!  lol

MileHigh

[Magluvin]

@MileHigh:
I believe your analysis is largely correct. However, the current in the CVR itself is real and is reversing and can have a real negative-going component; this is shown by the various LED tests, where it is possible to get an LED glowing in either orientation depending on where inductances are placed, as well as by the instrumental measurements. Whether the currents are caused by probe pickup, inductive shunts, or zipons, they are indicated on the scope and so they are in some sense "real", I will at least agree with the head NERD on that point. In the total circuit, though, the power flows from the battery and is dissipated in the load and the other circuit components; some of it sloshes around and depending on where your measurements are taken you can watch it doing all kinds of crazy stuff, like differentiating spikes, bouncing energy from electric to magnetic fields and back again, or making incredibly high powers for really short times. These isolated measurements can be called artefacts or data, depending on what you are trying to prove. The real issue, however, is easily answered and no oscilloscope is required to answer it.
I believe that cHeeseburger/humbugger actually illustrated what you are describing, using his simulator and showing how a simple circuit can respond to the rate of change of a voltage that never reverses, indicating negative currents when there really are none. I can't find it now but I think it's in the old, locked thread, from about a year ago, or perhaps on OUR.  The voltages shown are real, detected voltages; ascribing them to a real, significant change in current direction is where the mistake is made. In the case of Altoid, Tar Baby, and NERD, the matter is the same: if you make the measurements as shown you will get the voltages shown, and if you interpret them as showing real currents, you will be tempted to make some conclusions. And if you install components that also perform the same differentiation (LEDs and inductors) you will get the same results in hardware: a current that reverses direction _in that part of the circuit_. Oddly enough.... this current and the power it dissipates in a load are coming from the only power source(s) in the circuit: the main battery and the bias source.
And of course all our work here is bullshit, our equipment junk and our procedures worse than amateurish ....except when it appears on casual inspection that the work supports the Ainslie conjectures. Then the praise is voluminous, the equipment excellent and the procedures golden and bulletproof -- and the praise is still wrong, because it fails properly to assign credit where it is due.

But of course..... Altoid's battery still discharges. Doesn't it?

I can understand that.

You are saying that the CSR has real back and forth current, but all together, the oscillations seen in the CSR are ridding on a dc bias. Lets say for here, it is a positive DC bias, does the oscillation ever go below positive?

It seems odd to think that if the oscillations, dc biased throughout the cycle, even on the down stroke, would actually be a reversed current. One might "think" that the currents would be just a raising and lowering of forward current throughout the cycle, thus an led should only light in one direction.
If the leds can light in both directions, then the leds must be in a position in the circuit that allows the bias to be ignored?

I suppose it would be interesting to try the 2 leds, 1 forward and the other reversed, using an ac sig with a battery bias, using current limit resistors of course, to show for sure that the reverse led would light during the down stroke of the sig gen against the dc bias.

Then include an inductor to see the difference. ;]  But maybe it is not that simple.

Mags

[TinselKoala]

I can understand that.

You are saying that the CSR has real back and forth current, but all together, the oscillations seen in the CSR are ridding on a dc bias. Lets say for here, it is a positive DC bias, does the oscillation ever go below positive?

Well.... I suppose you could look at it that way. But.... the proper way to look at it, I think, is as a symmetrical (area-wise) AC waveform with a tiny _negative_ DC bias, much smaller than the peak AC excursions. Don't mistake what is happening on the bias CVR if there is one: here, there is a DC current with a smaller ripple..."AC" on top, caused by the oscillations. In the main CVR during the oscillations, there is very little "dc offset" and what there is shows up as the "mean current" being either positive or negative, rather than zero. Of course the "mean current" of an AC symmetrical waveform is given by the RMS current and isn't zero even if the positive and negative portions are equal: something else that should tell you that "they are not doing it right".

It seems odd to think that if the oscillations, dc biased throughout the cycle, even on the down stroke, would actually be a reversed current. One might "think" that the currents would be just a raising and lowering of forward current throughout the cycle, thus an led should only light in one direction.
If the leds can light in both directions, then the leds must be in a position in the circuit that allows the bias to be ignored?

Actually, what I said was that the LED can be made to light in _either_ direction, depending on where and how the additional inductances are added. You can't just take the LED out, turn it around and put it in and have it light up the same. But with an inductor in parallel you sometimes can. And again, during the oscillations, there is little or no real DC current visible at the main CVR.

I suppose it would be interesting to try the 2 leds, 1 forward and the other reversed, using an ac sig with a battery bias, using current limit resistors of course, to show for sure that the reverse led would light during the down stroke of the sig gen against the dc bias.

Then include an inductor to see the difference. ;]  But maybe it is not that simple.

Mags

I think I've done something like the demonstration you suggest, and I have linked to it several times, and each time it gets buried by a bunch of bloviation. So here, I'll do it again. This doesn't show a reverse LED lighting up  "against" the battery voltage, but the scope traces surely show that it would do so if in circuit.

Ainslie famously said,

What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'.

And TK replied:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc

That video, combined with this one, should make the point you raised in your last paragraph, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_yE5dEQg

[TinselKoala]

TK:

Pretty awesome pics!

As I am sure you know with all of the satellites in orbit around the moon nowadays they have imaged some or all of the lunar landing sites and you can even see the the trails left by the astronaut's footprints!

So that either puts a damper on the moon landing conspiracy theorists or it's a new layer on top of the original conspiracy!  lol

MileHigh

Thanks!
Anybody interested in Lunar observing will have a lot of fun with the LROC zoomable nearside:
wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse/view/wac_nearside