Testing the TK Tar Baby

[poynt99]

Creative power analysis at its best. Good stuff Greg.  :

If you don't like your wave form, flip your scope leads; now ON is OFF, and OFF is ON. Now your Pin is even lower than before! 


PS. TK, I was indeed the first to explore the DMM method of input power measurement, and it was always met with ridicule or indifference. Check the date my videos were uploaded. Also, I had been proposing this method back in the day when Harvey was involved in the testing with Rose (a few years ago), and it is in my "detailed analysis" write up posted about a year ago.

And I might add that the Pout method I posted above, is also most likely a first. At least I've not yet seen anyone suggest that method. I first posted that when I developed my version of Rosemary's latest circuit. The Pin and Pout measurements are right on the schematic for that burst oscillator design, and that was posted at least a year ago as well.

For the record.

[TinselKoala]

Thanks for the correction. I am happy to acknowledge your priority, because you did such a comprehensive test and explanation of the DMM utility. However, it's one of those "secrets" that may have been more commonly known than is appreciated. Your work stands out as an exceptionally clear and detailed account and I, for one, am grateful for it.

Not many people mentioned it when Ainslie was denigrating my use of the DMMs, though, even when I showed calibration to Ohm's law and between other instruments, at DC and at the Ainslie operating frequency. She didn't accept my results with the DMM, even though they agreed with more difficult scope measurements.

The Pout method you are talking about is the use of Pout_AVG = IRL(rms)² x RL(hot) = [VCSR(rms)/RCSR]² x RL(hot) ?
It's good that you specify that the load should be hot and therefore at a stable resistance, but since IRL(rms) = VCSR(rms)/RCSR, isn't your method contained in the derivation in the Wiki article on rms, as in the snippet attached below?

[poynt99]

[snip]... isn't your method contained in the derivation in the Wiki article on rms, as in the snippet attached below?

No. The point of my method is two-fold:

1) The Irms is not part of a v(t) x i(t) computation. It's not required. My method requires only that an rms value be obtained for the current. This is done with either a good True RMS DMM (signal components less than 100kHz), or using the RMS "measure" function on your scope.

2) No one to date as far as I know uses P=I²R to obtain Pout with these type of circuits. The innovation here is that part 1) is the hardest thing to obtain, and that's real easy. The hot value for R is quite simple, and together with Irms will provide for an accurate Pout measurement.

I'm not saying I came up with P=I²R. The novelty is applying it to these type of circuits.

[TinselKoala]

No. The point of my method is two-fold:

1) The Irms is not part of a v(t) x i(t) computation. It's not required. My method requires only that an rms value be obtained for the current. This is done with either a good True RMS DMM (signal components less than 100kHz), or using the RMS "measure" function on your scope.

2) No one to date as far as I know uses P=I²R to obtain Pout with these type of circuits. The innovation here is that part 1) is the hardest thing to obtain, and that's real easy. The hot value for R is quite simple, and together with Irms will provide for an accurate Pout measurement.

I'm not saying I came up with P=I²R. The novelty is applying it to these type of circuits.

Uh... OK..... but the derivation in the Wiki article is shown to apply to complex waveforms as long as an rms current value can be obtained "somehow". But sure, if you are a bench tech measuring "these types of circuits" presumably meaning noisy PWMs or switching power supplies, you already have an integrating oscilloscope sitting in front of you and you know how to use it.... so you would probably not use your method directly.... even though the scope will be doing it internally.
I think the real contribution and novelty is in your insistence and demonstration that one can indeed make good measurements, reliable and accurate, with your method and without an expensive digital scope, as long as some basic knowledge is present. That is certainly worth the time and effort, and your patience in explaining things to "them folks" is admirable, and something I'll never have. "These types of circuits" hopefully will include many more of the electrical and electronic circuits that free energy hobbyists will be experimenting with, so that better power measurements can be made with confidence with simple and available gear.  The TRMS DMM is a handy item to have. It would be really great if more people would read or watch and understand your various documents and videos. I know I've learned from them, so I thank you for your efforts. I've made my own share of silly errors and you've been patient enough to guide me to correct ways of thinking. Would that you could be so successful with RA.

[mrsean2k]

I see Rose has found time between acting as a sock-puppet for someone else's questions on her own forum, and humiliating herself with sock-puppetry of her own on here, to step in and revise history once again.


She's bravely taken the opportunity to delete .99's infinitely courteous and on-topic posts and to paint them as somehow argumentative or abusive. I'd almost feel sorry for Greg being pulled along by the nose, if it wasn't for the fact he's proving to be a total bell end.