Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Keep in mind that the voltages listed in the table were taken under no-load conditions.

Even my 5 A-H batteries don't sag that much on the normal draw during oscillations, and a fully charged 60 A-H battery is not going to sag nearly that much with the full DC current possible in the circuit of 6 amps or less. Is it? At 12.7 volts the Fig. 2 mean battery voltage should have been 76.2 volts. Do you think a 6 amp draw on a 60 A-H battery... a stack of automotive or marine batteries.... that is fully charged and has a noload voltage of 76.2 volts is going to make it sag to 73.8 volts?  I don't.

Ainslie's data have always indicated that her batteries are discharging. There is one series of scopeshots taken over a single day involving several trials, and when these are placed in chronological order and the mean battery voltage is examined.... guess what. A steady decrease of several tenths of a volt can be clearly seen over the day. Her continuing claim that they have not measured any discharge, or however she terms it, can only be the result of her "not actually" checking the battery voltages and considering what they mean. And after all... she has twice admitted this very thing over the last several days.

ETA: Oh, and what about sticking that diode in the middle of the stack, between #3 and #4 of the sixpack? What happens, and what are the implications for the explanation of the oscillations?

[TinselKoala]

On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a  mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series.

On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.

On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, kess than 10 minutes later.

http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/

In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts.

The next shots I can find are SCRN0361 and SCRN0362, both on May 8, both at 25.1 volts, and I think those might be the latest I have.

I am quoting the scope's computed means, always the highest of the three it gives (mean mean, high mean, low mean, fortune cookie extra).

[TinselKoala]

So.

We have confirmation from the USA laboratory, trusted and acknowledged by Ainslie, that the batteries DO discharge, using her own apparatus, function generator, and precise instructions.

We have the result from Tar Baby, the only known independent replication of the NERD circuit in all its permutations... producing the identical oscillations and other behaviours of the NERD circuit, including negative mean power computations.... and according to several DIM BULB tests, Tar
Baby's batteries do discharge.

Simulation results indicate that the battery recharging is a mistaken interpretation of artefactual measurements made by naive oscilloscope users and is not actually happening.

And a close examination of the scopeshots published by Ainslie herself show a steadily decreasing battery voltage over several days of trials spread over several weeks.

The claims made by Ainslie concerning battery non-discharge or recharge are therefore quite soundly refuted. The NERD batteries DO discharge and from all appearances do so normally, without interference from any "recharging" reverse current flow.

This of course means that, whatever else happens, the COP INFINITY or COP>INFINITY claim is also refuted, as the nonsense that it is.

How is it possible that she can still make the claims that she does, and still manage to get her error-riddled daft manuscript posted? That bemuses me, for sure.

And-- as we have been saying for some time--- the presence of Ainslie's claims, in the face of all these refutations and proofs of error and mendacity..... is an affront to the entire nontraditional research community.

[poynt99]

ETA: Oh, and what about sticking that diode in the middle of the stack, between #3 and #4 of the sixpack? What happens, and what are the implications for the explanation of the oscillations?

The oscillation still dies in the simulation. Were you expecting something different?

[TinselKoala]

The oscillation still dies in the simulation. Were you expecting something different?

Not at all.

Are you expecting to be able to explain to RA how capacitors in parallel to the batteries prevent the oscilloscope from seeing the battery oscillations but still allow the circuit as a whole to oscillate, but a series diode kills everything?