Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Here I preserve this bloviating, insulting, misrepresenting and threatening post from Ainslie, with a few of my comments inserted.

My Dear picowatt

I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts.  What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell.  It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend.  It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote.  It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume.  Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.

This is very typical Ainslie-ese. When she cannot address a point substantively she resorts to ridiculous insults and personal attacks--- because she is a bloviating lying troll of a scrawny parroting old woman.

I did NOT say you had read the scope incorrectly.  I simply stated that the coupling was set to DC.  You KNOW THIS.  It should have been set to AC.  The coupling can be varied on each and every channel.  CORRECTLY this should have displayed a DC VALUE.  It IS 6 volts or thereby.  In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby.  YOU KNOW THIS.  it is less than 6 volts AC.  it is not less than 6 volts DC.  AGAIN.  You KNOW THIS.

You here betray AGAIN that you have no idea what the AC/DC coupling control does or how it is used, nor can you read the traces on your own scope without having numbers in boxes. You are an ignorant, arrogant fool, Ainslie, and you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into your own soil.

We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity.  EVER.  We have NO NEED TO.

YOU REMOVED your reference to the battery capacity that was left dangling, and YOU REMOVED the ridiculous statement that the trial had used 5.9 megaJoules, which you originally stated as "evidence" that the battery capacity was exceeded. You made this correction in the draft manuscript but you STILL PERSIST in your ridiculous math errors elsewhere. In other words: AGAIN YOU LIE. See the images below, of the old version containing the reference to the unknown battery capacity and the 5.9 megaJoule figure, and the new version where they have been CORRECTED away.

YOU WISH.  That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.  I cannot change any of the data that is shown on the LeCroy.  I'm not clever enough.  No-one is.

You are right about one thing: You are not clever enough, by far, to be carrying on this kind of work in the real world of scientists and engineers who actually know how to do things like CALCULATE THE CAPACITY OF A BATTERY.

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN DEMAND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS?  YOU ARE NOT GOD.  How DISGUSTING. That you can sit back and repeat your same stupid questions and expect an answer.  TRUST ME ON THIS.  I will NEVER again directly answer any of your posts.  It leaves me feeling sullied.

The questions are not "stupid", Ainslie. Your dodging and refusal to give an answer is STUPID and mendacious and also ignorant and arrogant. They are questions that ANYBODY who knows how to read a scope should be asking and they are questions that you indeed MUST ANSWER about your "opensource" project. And indeed.... we are all waiting for your demonstration of this mode of operation again, since NOBODY can achieve the same thing with a functioning, correctly wired mosfet in place. But... we are going to have to wait even longer now, aren't we...because you are sending your actual apparatus off to the USA to a "well funded laboratory" and you won't be getting it back any time soon.

picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are.  I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum.  Here it's likely to be censored.  I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.

R.

And here we once again have the threat, not so veiled.

Ainslie, you are a piece of work. There is nothing like you on the internet anywhere. The closest comparison that I can think of is Archer Quinn, with MYLOW being a close second.

[picowatt]

My Dear picowatt

I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts.  What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell.  It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend.  It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote.  It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume.  Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.
I did NOT say you had read the scope incorrectly.  I simply stated that the coupling was set to DC.  You KNOW THIS.  It should have been set to AC.  The coupling can be varied on each and every channel.  CORRECTLY this should have displayed a DC VALUE.  It IS 6 volts or thereby.  In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby.  YOU KNOW THIS.  it is less than 6 volts AC.  it is not less than 6 volts DC.  AGAIN.  You KNOW THIS.We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity.  EVER.  We have NO NEED TO.  YOU WISH.  That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.  I cannot change any of the data that is shown on the LeCroy.  I'm not clever enough.  No-one is.WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN DEMAND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS?  YOU ARE NOT GOD.  How DISGUSTING. That you can sit back and repeat your same stupid questions and expect an answer.  TRUST ME ON THIS.  I will NEVER again directly answer any of your posts.  It leaves me feeling sullied.

picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are.  I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum.  Here it's likely to be censored.  I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.

R.

So, exposing identities, as you have already done, is accepted practice at your new forum?

Better let all who post there know this as well.  You should probably also let them them know that if they ask a question, based on facts, that you do not agree with, you will go ballistic and make all manner of threats and personal attacks, including legal action.  Possibly you can add this to your new forum's rules and guidelines.

If you do not pre-warn your new readers, I can only hope that they may read here as well, to see it first hand.

[picowatt]

TK,

I am considering what to use for a load resistor.  I mentioned in an earlier post going air cooled with a convective or forced air chimney.  Was thinking about using an aluminum encased wirewound for the load attached to an aluminum thermal mass/heatsink mounted in the chimney.  I would like to have repeatable results, but not so much thermal mass that it takes a long time for temps to stabilize.  Thermal mass would have to be sufficient to integrate the pulsed heating during Q1 on cycles.   

How long does it take your oil bath can to stabilize at a given power level and what is the max temp you have driven it to?

PW

[TinselKoala]

Poynt,

I am considering using an aluminum cased wirewound power resistor mounted to an aluminum thermal mass/heat sink and mounted in a vertical chimney with a CPU fan and controller maintaining constant air flow.  Thermister would be buried in the thermal mass and its immediate surroundings/wires insulated to ensure the temp measured represents the bulk of the thermal mass.  Inlet air temp and humidity would need to be maintained fairly constant throughout all tests.

As to the equivalent load applied to the battery, I do not like this fixed load and separate resistor idea.  Will a flooded lead acid battery (or any chemistry) deliver more amp hours if the applied load is a 10ohm load applied at a 10% duty cycle or if the applied load is a constant 100 ohm?  If this is the planned test, than the assumption that the amp hour rating is similar for both loads must be confirmed via rigorous testing.

I would use the same load throughout all tests.  For a comparison battery run down test, I would pulse a very well controlled, low RDSon MOSFET at a duty cycle that provides an equivalent dissipation in the load as was indicated by the NERD circuit tests.  This way the battery sees the same pulsed load but without the oscillations and MOSFET losses inherent to the NERD circuit. 

As for measuring the assumed 10.6V per battery cutoff voltage, the circuit used to measure/monitor this must be filtered fairly heavily.  First, all oscillations must be removed from this measurement to ensure they do not affect the cut-off point.  Second, as the batteries approach 10.6V, their internal resistance will increase and cause voltage drops during pulsed loads which must also be filtered from the measurement.  The use of similarly pulsed loads as described above would reduce this issue a bit.

I agree with TK in that the proposed test does not lean in the NERD's favor, as MOSFET dissipation is not accounted for.

What are your thoughts?

PW

   

I like your idea of a control system that is pulsed at the same duty cycle as the NERD apparatus.

But I take it then that the pure oscillation mode, that we have been discussing here for so long, is to be abandoned in favor of a continued BIPOLAR gate drive situation as described in Figure 7 and the other high heat trials. This will of course require the use of a function generator or some other arrangement for pulsation and duty cycle control and negative bias current and positive gate voltages on the part of the NERDs. It is unclear how they propose to deal with this issue.

I'm not sure why you would want to do your calorimetry in air. Is it because the original NERD report just had the element hanging there in the breeze, like some unclothed body part, and their data reported "temperature _over_ the resistor" ? This is unreliable, as you know. Your proposed scheme of airflow and so on will be an interesting introduction to the pitfalls of calorimetry. I'd suggest doing it in oil from the beginning, using a fairly heat "leaky" but still stable container for your temperature-Wattage data. It might take a bit longer but it will be easier to get reliable data from a reasonably easy to construct system.

You might like to take a look at the MOAC description here:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf

But seriously... why bother? Surely you've noticed.... in those periods when you can pry yourself up out of your armchair, using your never-yet-received mosfets, as Ainslie would have it.... that your batteries are discharging when your build of the circuit is running. Therefore, you have not replicated the Ainslie circuit at all, so all your other efforts are moot.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I am considering what to use for a load resistor.  I mentioned in an earlier post going air cooled with a convective or forced air chimney.  Was thinking about using an aluminum encased wirewound for the load attached to an aluminum thermal mass/heatsink mounted in the chimney.  I would like to have repeatable results, but not so much thermal mass that it takes a long time for temps to stabilize.  Thermal mass would have to be sufficient to integrate the pulsed heating during Q1 on cycles.   

How long does it take your oil bath can to stabilize at a given power level and what is the max temp you have driven it to?

PW

Ah, crossed posts, sorry. Let's see.... The air cooling is a method that can give very precise data but is difficult to attain in practice, as the experience with MOAC shows. As I said before I think heating a known mass of oil is the way to go. With a consistent "leak rate" of a moderately insulated container you can determine the heat leak rate by heating it up and letting it cool off. Then your stable temperature values reached will also correlate to precise and repeatable power dissipation values.  You can also then get away with using smaller physical sized resistors since you can safely exceed their normal wattage ratings due to the oil immersion. The original Ainslie COP>17 circuit made much of the fact that a tubular ceramic wirewound power resistor was the load of choice; in fact much pain was gone through by her early replicators to try to match this resistor. This is partly why Tar Baby's load consists of the stack of tubular ceramic wirewound resistors. They are arranged so that maximum area is exposed to the oil directly and the oil can convect through the tubes themselves.
I don't know how long it takes for it to reach equilibrium temperatures at various input power levels. If I was intending to use it for the kind of testing we are discussing I'd probably unwrap about half the insulation on it, or even more. But I'd still try to keep it out of drafts and I'd know the ambient temp during testing.
I think you want a compromise between thermal mass and container heat leak rate, for sufficiently slow response yet fast enough to attain new stable values fairly quickly when power input is changed.

Still, I think this is going about it backwards.
Taking the input power to the nerd device, measured by the scope used properly, and setting your DC power (with duty cycle pulsations if necessary) to the same power level, then looking at the time-temperature profile as the load heats to its stable temperature, will show the efficiency at heating a load. Then you know the actual power dissipated at the load, given the input power level. For the NERD claims to be true, the efficiency measured this way would have to be over 100 percent, even taking into account the heat wasted in the NERD mosfets and other circuit components. Their claim is that useful load heating is accomplished without power being drawn from the battery. Since power _can indeed_ be measured to be drawn from the battery during legitimate high heat trials ... clearly... as is evident in their own scope traces.... then any load heating over and above that accounted for by the power that IS being drawn from the battery is all that can be attributed to any "Ainslie effect". If the power being drawn from the battery is sufficient to account for the load heat... that is, if the load heating efficiency is 100 percent or less.... then there is no evidence for an Ainslie effect operating. Only if the heat produced in the load is _greater_ than that which can be accounted for by the battery drain which is measured by proper use of the instrumentation... that is, only if the load heating efficiency is greater than 100 percent... can there be any evidence for Ainslie's claims.

In other words I think a set of graphs like the one below are necessary and will tell the whole story, without the need for protracted battery drain comparisons.