Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Groundloop - I am aware of your argument.  You are arguing that there's an initial upwards of 5 amps flowing during the 'on time' of the duty cycle.  IF there was that much amperage then it would be both evident and  measurable across the current sensing resistor.  What is evident is 0.32 mA at best.  And IF - for whatever reason that upwards of 5 amps is being discharged by the battery supply and NOT flowing to its negative rail - then that would be a miracle all on its own. 

Just to be absolute clear about it, the energy transferred to the 10 Ohm load is 21 Watt per Second.
I have alread calculated in the 12.2% ON time. So you can NOT calculate the duty cycle twice!

So Yes.  You are right.  You have indeed factored in that 12.2% period ON time.  But it is NOT what is measured to be flowing during that brief 'ON' time. 

I have already explained to you what happen during the fuction generator OFF cycle. The -12 Volt pulse from the function generator acts like a battery in series with the main battery. So the function
generator is injecting some energy INTO the circuit. This energy will reduce the average energy usage from the main battery. The theoretical input the function generator will have is 2.88 Watt since the internal resistance of the function generator is 50 Ohm. In real life it is less. So for each period of  87,8% of the duty cycle the function generator input energy of approx. 2,6 Watt per Second. This means that at every OFF cycle the main battery can provide 2,6 Watt per Second less to the load.

Again.  IF we factor in 20 watts dissipated during the 'on' time - which is not evident in the current discharged anywhere at all on that circuit - and IF we then factor in a further 2.6 watts - at best - of energy supplied during the 'off time' then we are still left with an anomaly.  The actual heat dissipated at that resistor is upwards of 200 degrees centigrade.  Look at the heat schedules in our paper.  If we apply our element resistor to a continual DC supply source then wattage needed to get upwards of 200 degrees centigrade is also upwards of 50 watts.  Where is there the current flow - even in your argument - that allows for all that heat?

But you're right.  My answer to your post was excessively simplistic and certainly I factored in that duty cycle twice.  But you must concede that IF we are indeed measuring plus/minus 0.32 mA or thereby during the ON period of the duty cycle then that must either be a measurements error or it is pointing at an anomaly.  Where I thought you were touching on the 'fact' is that we are INDEED dissipating in the region of upwards of 20 watts during that brief ON period.  We are not, however, able to reconcile that wattage with the current flow discharged from the battery supply.  What  we're measuring has being discharged from the battery is 0.32 mA for 12.5% of the duty cycle which is 0.04 mA over that entire cycle.  Then the 'extra heat' comes from where?  From that oscillation?  You tell me because we actually don't have the answer.  We have only proposed what might be the answer. 

Rosie

[Groundloop]

Groundloop - I am aware of your argument.  You are arguing that there's an initial upwards of 5 amps flowing during the 'on time' of the duty cycle.  IF there was that much amperage then it would be both evident and  measurable across the current sensing resistor.  What is evident is 0.32 mA at best.  And IF - for whatever reason that upwards of 5 amps is being discharged by the battery supply and NOT flowing to its negative rail - then that would be a miracle all on its own. 
So Yes.  You are right.  You have indeed factored in that 12.2% period ON time.  But it is NOT what is measured to be flowing during that brief 'ON' time. 
Again.  IF we factor in 20 watts dissipated during the 'on' time - which is not evident in the current discharged anywhere at all on that circuit - and IF we then factor in a further 2.6 watts - at best - of energy supplied during the 'off time' then we are still left with an anomaly.  The actual heat dissipated at that resistor is upwards of 200 degrees centigrade.  Look at the heat schedules in our paper.  If we apply our element resistor to a continual DC supply source then wattage needed to get upwards of 200 degrees centigrade is also upwards of 50 watts.  Where is there the current flow - even in your argument - that allows for all that heat?

But you're right.  My answer to your post was excessively simplistic and certainly I factored in that duty cycle twice.  But you must concede that IF we are indeed measuring plus/minus 0.32 mA or thereby during the ON period of the duty cycle then that must either be a measurements error or it is pointing at an anomaly.  Where I thought you were touching on the 'fact' is that we are INDEED dissipating in the region of upwards of 20 watts during that brief ON period.  We are not, however, able to reconcile that wattage with the current flow discharged from the battery supply.  What  we're measuring has being discharged from the battery is 0.32 mA for 12.5% of the duty cycle which is 0.04 mA over that entire cycle.  Then the 'extra heat' comes from where?  From that oscillation?  You tell me because we actually don't have the answer.  We have only proposed what might be the answer. 

Rosie

Rosemary,

If you are not measuring close to 1,25 Volt over the 0,25 Ohm RSHUNT during the ON time, then I will say that
the chance of the measurement beeing in error is 100%. :-)

GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

If you are not measuring close to 1,25 Volt over the RSHUNT during the ON time, then I will say that
the chance of the measurement beeing in error is 100%. :-)

GL.

EXACTLY.  And that's the only reasonable conclusion available.  But the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY.  And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments.  So?  Those instruments are NOT doing their thing.  OR we're dealing with anomalies.  That's PRECISELY why we've written those papers.  And that's PRECISELY why we need WIDE engagement by experimentalists who are actually attempting to get to the heart of the problem and not simply DISMISS them as is TK et al trying to do.  So FRANTICALLY, I might add.  And that's also why we will demonstrate ALL of these experiments  VERY PUBLICLY.  That way our papers will be deemed to have been published.  And that way our academics can engage in this discussion without the 'stigma' of dealing with 'false claims' related to a 'pathological science'.  Perhaps that explains our motives better?

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[Groundloop]

EXACTLY.  And that's the only reasonable conclusion available.  But the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY.  And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments.  So?  Those instruments are NOT doing their thing.  OR we're dealing with anomalies.  That's PRECISELY why we've written those papers.  And that's PRECISELY why we need WIDE engagement by experimentalists who are actually attempting to get to the heart of the problem and not simply DISMISS them as is TK et al trying to do.  So FRANTICALLY, I might add.  And that's also why we will demonstrate ALL of these experiments  VERY PUBLICLY.  That way our papers will be deemed to have been published.  And that way our academics can engage in this discussion without the 'stigma' of dealing with 'false claims' related to a 'pathological science'.  Perhaps that explains our motives better?

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Rosemary,

I still have my 10 Ohm 25 Watt resistor, so I'm going to test this setup this weekend.
I will use a mosfet and a 0,25 Watt RSHUNT also. Then I will switch the mosfet permanently ON
by using a constant -12 Volt DC to the gate. Since the circuit now is in DC mode, and the mosfet
in on conducting curren all the time, then I can measure the voltage over the 0,25 Ohm RSHUNT
with a normal simple volt meter. No need for a fancy o-scope to do that.

I will let you know how it goes.

GL.

[TinselKoala]

In the case we have been TRYING to discuss, the Q1 mosfet is not turned fully on. It is getting only about 5 volts to its gate and everybody agrees that the current during the ON part of the duty cycle is about 320 mA in the _particular case_ that we have been discussing, which is the scopeshot included in Ainslie's blog post number 117. Note the description of the data and the technique. Are we sure of ANYTHING that Ainslie reports?

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html

ALL of Ainslie's rants having to do with her mistaken conceptions of power are based on her HALLUCINATION that I ever said or claimed that the full 20 Watts that is the instantaneous power conveyed by that current is dissipated at the load. In fact, when this first STARTED I explicitly calculated the I^2R power dissipation at the 11.1 ohm load corresponding to 320 mA. And I also commented that the duty cycle was reducing this in the average. Yet Ainslie prefers to lie about what I actually am saying and she argues with the words she PREFERS that I would have said: a hallucination, since I said no such thing and in fact, many times when this typical Ainslie behaviour occurs, have said just the opposite.