Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

What does "percent" mean? Well, it's PER cent, where the "cent" part means "100".

So if we have a quantity, call it A, and we want another quantity that is, say, 25 percent of A, how do we get there by calculation?

Well, first we take quantity A and DIVIDE it by 100. (PER cent means "divide by 100").  So in strange math symbols, we do A/100. The answer is one percent of A. Then we multiply that by the 25 part to arrive at the total (25 percent OF A) where, strangely enough, the "OF" part indicates a multiplication operation is to be performed somewhere.

Multiplication and division are inverse processes, and usually a division problem can be re-written as a multiplication problem and vice-versa.


(I rly hope that will be enough for the basic maths. I think it's important to clear up misconceptions and misconstruals that should have been taken care of long ago (like in the eighth grade algebra class that somehow got skipped) so that people are at least speaking a common language when they discuss complex issues.... like multiplication and division.)

[TinselKoala]

Significant digits, accuracy, and precision. Well.

In this age of digital everything, calculators that display twelve digits after a decimal point, DMMs that poke numbers at you as fast as you can read them off.... I often see people reporting calculations from instrumental readings that have TOO MANY digits to be realistic.

Accuracy means that the reading you get agrees with the "true" real-world state of affairs. Precision means how high-resolution a reading you actually get. Let's say I'm shooting at a target. All my shots fall into a tight group in the same place on the target. That's precision. But all my shots are three inches low and two to the left, even though I'm aiming at the bullseye in the sight. That's accuracy. They are different but interlinked.

Note that if a person claims that a particular value, call it "A", is equal to, say, 5.0789 volts.... the claim is that A is NOT equal to 5.0788 volts, nor to 5.0790 volts, nor any other value. But the true real-world value, under the claim, "could be" 5.07893, or 5.07896, or some other value in that finer range, and the claim would still be true.

Get the picture? In the first place, if my voltmeter reads 5.00 volts, and is accurate-- my precision is only good to three "significant digits". I don't know if the true value is 5.001 volts or 5.009 volts. So when I use that 5.00 volt figure in my calculations, I MUST ignore all extra digits of false precision that my calculator gives me. Citing them is the same as claiming I know the input data to equivalent precision... and I don't.

Now if I'm reading the values off the oscilloscope... I can only read the trace position value to within about half a "tick mark" accuracy, so that means any value I read will have only that level of precision, and if the scope's baseline or amplifier gain is incorrect, then all my readings will be inaccurate: not only "blurry" but also in the "wrong place". So my report of 5.00 volts, while "precise" in that all the figures do indicate real readings on an instrument... the true real-world value might be 4.00 volts, because I've set my baseline wrong or the scope's amplifier is out of calibration.

This is where the issue of "AC coupling" versus "DC coupling" on a scope trace could come into play. Where's the baseline that measurements are made from? Inquiring minds want to know.

[TinselKoala]

So... when _I_ speak about energy, power, Joules and Watts and Amps and Volts and all that jazz, you aren't going to have to learn some new strange language where words mean whatever I want them to mean and can change with the wind direction and relative humidity. I will  be using standard physics and electrical engineering terms and definitions, and if I go astray somewhere PLEASE somebody let me know.

If overunity device performance can't be tested, evaluated, or described using standard terminology and methodology -- yet they are to be built out of off-the-shelf simple components --, I am afraid we are sunk before we even get launched.

And no matter what my own personal weird theories are (I believe in pushing gravity, no dark matter, eleven dimensions, and a polarizable vacuum, for example, so there) you will not have to read about them, to understand how the Tar Baby performs.

[evolvingape]

There are still a few points about the open-source, help-to-replicate NERD RAT device I would like to understand.

First there's the value of the inductive-resistive load. I've seen inductances cited that are all over the map. I've seen 1.5 HENRY posted somewhere as the inductance of the load. This seems implausible to me based on the waveforms I've seen and what I know about the construction of common water heater elements. Also I have little confidence in instrumental measurements, especially difficult ones like inductance, that have been reported concerning that device.

Then there's the question of the battery capacity of the batteries that team used. I can't figure it out from the company's website catalog listing of the battery they used. The most reliable outside source I could find (humbugger) has it at 50 A-H, but the "official" reports of the NERD RAT device have it listed as 40 A-H. If battery draw-down tests are being considered, one would normally like to know the actual rated battery capacity, just in case someone cared enough to wonder if a 25 percent difference in actual capacity could affect such a test at all.
( 40 plus (25 PER cent of 40) = 50 ).

Hi TK, glad to see this claim is finally being rigorously tested as PER the scientific method!

About the batteries, we never did get a straight answer from Rosemary. Her donated set is the only set I have ever seen without a model number ?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/821/

I'm delighted to see that everyone's answering TK's question.  I'm not sure I'd dare.  And IF that was a question by Glen Lettenmaier related to batteries - then here's the thing.  We were donated those beautiful Raylites.  But they have no ratings detailed on the battery itself.  We've tried to determine this and were advised that they're 40 ampere hour AND subsequently - that they're 60 ampere hour.  Don't know for sure and there's no way that we can find this out definitively.

We erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper.  Here's the 'extract' from our paper.

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries’ rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis now, for over 18 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 12 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. Bearing in mind that the batteries’ rating is is not more than 60AH, there is evidence of out performance related to that rating.  However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This would require a detailed analysis of the supply’s electrolytic properties that is outside the scope of this presentation and expertise. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

So TK - YOU do the math.  And when you do this - factor in the continual use of 6 batteries only - as 2 were taken out of circulation some time back.  Or better still - average it at 7 batteries.  And then factor in that we've had possession of those batteries since late Jan early feb of 2010. Which means that its usage has been FAR more extensive than the conservatively assessed 18 months of continual use.  The usage has NOW actually spanned closer to 26 months.  And then try and explain why there is apparently absolutely NO LOSS OF VOLTAGE OVER ANY OF THE BATTERIES SINCE THE DAY WE TOOK POSSESSION. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

As you can see when they "erred on the side of caution and have used the 60 AH rating for our paper." they even got that wrong and went the wrong side of "caution".

See Rosemary's blog post #232, January 23 2012, for more information on her calculations and battery ratings. I would copy it over but it is too long. Please promise you will not fall off your chair from laughing if you read it... it is a literal goldmine of scientific delusion.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/

RM

[conradelektro]

To TK concerning the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CXWWupl0MU&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA&index=1&feature=plcp (Electric OU: Supplement: MOSFETS... How do THEY work??):

TK, at the end of the video you are catching some oscillations (at minute 10:31). What do you want to say in relation to these oscillations? I am not getting your point (because my English is not good enough to dig insinuations and my knowledge in electronics is pretty shaky).

What do some people claim in relation to these oscillations? What are you claiming in relation to these oscillations?

(I am not criticizing, I jut want to understand.)

Greetings, Conrad