Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

TK:

Sublime... I am at a loss for words.

Instead I made two clips to continue the technical discussion.  I couldn't find my white lab coat though.  Sigh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iYj93Qg6Rc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IP8g7-VPn4

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Well, I think there are several conclusions that we can draw now.

1. It's clear that a battery can be charged by a function generator thru a diode, if the FG is powerful enough. Yawn.

2. Tar Baby sure didn't achieve COP INFINITY. Not even close. But did it achieve COP>1 ? In other words, did the batteries run down less fast than they would have, running Tar Baby as compared to DC power at the same average level? I'm saving that one for later on.
Tar Baby didn't charge its batteries at a level sufficient to maintain a "full charge", that's for sure.

3. The Berd is a Werd. Definitely.

[TinselKoala]

There is another broad conclusion that may be drawn here, even before testing is complete.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

In other words, any claimant for an overunity prize should really expect to have to go through at LEAST this much trouble, public documentation, experimentation, and public testing if they seriously expect consideration. One must be prepared and WILLING to go through all this process, instead of just providing word salad that scrambles existing convention with regard to mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering. This is especially true if the claimant has a long history of error, arrogance, and past unsupported claims. When the claimant refuses to cooperate with reasonable testing protocols, nor to have rational and fruitful discussion about the device or the claims, comprehensive testing becomes even more important IF the award is really to be pursued in earnest. And when the claimant refuses to retract conclusions based on demonstrably wrong calculations, resorts to irrelevant ad hominem abuse, denies the reality and impact of independent work concerning the claims, and continues the pursuit of the award nonetheless.... there is something seriously wrong with the process.

It is my humble opinion that all of the above "due diligence" that I have shown should be accomplished by the claimant FIRST, before applying for any prize or trumpeting great news like COP INFINITY, and this diligence should indeed be open to inspection on request. Obfuscation, denial, delay, ridiculous testing conditions and requirements... all of these things should be firm indicators that the claimant can NOT in fact support the claims, and probably knows it.
Whoever is responsible for administering any prizes or awards should require some minimal level of REAL proof along with any application for consideration. Some word salad essays and a video riddled with error and prevarication do not rise to the level necessary for consideration.

[TinselKoala]

Continuing on: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, sometimes even more so than bland ignorance.

The NERD RATs, having never actually TESTED their battery's state of charge, base their claim of recharging on the power calculations measured by their scopes and calculated by their spreadsheets. The data is coming from digitally sampled repeating waveforms of a fixed frequency.  The math performed on this data must be done correctly if it is to be accurate, but just as importantly the data must be COLLECTED properly. Since power calculations depend strongly on the temporal relationship between the measured current and voltage signals, some things must be considered before just hooking up probes and pushing buttons.

The Tek Scope Guru says:

Measuring AC Power with Advanced Math                   Question: How do I measure the AC power using the advanced math capabilities â€" I wanted to use the equation p = |V| x |I| x cos(Phase( V-I)) but don’t seem to get the correct answer.
Answer: Just to recap, it looks like you are making a power quality measurement on the input to your power supply.  To do that, you are measuring voltage and current on the input, then performing math to determine the Real Power from the measured Apparent Power.
Whenever you are making power measurements, it’s critical to deskew your probes.  Your voltage and current probes have different propagation delays, and even the pathways behind each channel of your oscilloscope have different delays and gain.  The differences in pathway for the voltage measurement and current measurement introduce timing errors and amplitude errors in to your power measurement, since power is the product of voltage and current. This, of course, will distort your phase measurement and affect your results.
To deskew your probes, you’ll need to adjust the delay and offset of each oscilloscope channel to compensate for the differences in pathways.  To do this, you can use a deskew kit.  This deskew kit provides a fixture and pulse generator.  The deskew pulse generator provides a stimulus signal to the deskew fixture which is then routed to the voltage and current probes.  The propagation delay and gain of each path can then be adjusted using the channel adjustments (deskew and offset) in the scope to align the two waveforms.
Or, if you are using automated power analysis software like DPOPWR or DPO4PWR/DPO3PWR, you can use automated deskew in the software.  The static de-skew function automatically adjusts the delay between selected voltage and current channels based on an embedded table of propagation times for the probes.  Or, each probe may have its propagation delay embedded in its internal memory which the oscilloscope reads.  This technique offers a quick and easy method to minimize de-skew.  DPOPWR even provides an automatic deskew function in which the scope adjusts the waveforms for you.
Automated power analysis software will also automatically measure power quality parameters like apparent power, reactive power and real power (also known as true power) for you.
For more resources on power measurements, I’d suggest looking at www.tektronix.com/power.

In an earlier thread I mentioned the problem of probe skew and posted a link to a Tek or Agilent document concerning it; this issue also came up when considering the free energy claims of Steorn. It is a critical issue and the higher the frequency concerned, the more critical it is.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the NERDs have considered probe skew or have dealt with it in any way. It can easily reverse the sign of a calculated power signal, especially one that is collected from a repetitive noise source subject to sampling errors and aliasing.

[MileHigh]

TK:

I have a few ideas for you if you start probing around the circuit.

I am picking up again on what PW stated about the signal across the 0.25 ohm CSR being pure AC because it's AC coupled to the Q2 MOSFET array through the Q2 gate capacitance.

Also, I am still confining my discussion to "normal negative offset oscillation mode."  I am also going to reference the schematic that I reposted a few posts back because it is easier for me.  So what I say may not apply or need to be slightly tweaked relative to your setup.

So let's look at the Q2 array as an oscillator, or call it an "oscillation engine."  We are going to keep the discussion somewhat simplified and not cover every single signal path for the sake of clarity and simplicity.

So the Q2 engine takes in some average DC current from the drain and that same average DC current must exit by the source and then flow into the function generator.

So you have three primary agents competing for the supplied (battery + function generator) power;  1) the inductive resistor,  2) the Q2 MOSFET oscillator engine, and 3) the 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator.  This implies that the higher the power allocated to the MOSFET oscillator, the higher it's effective impedance, and the higher the voltage drop it sustains relative to the other two agents.  So if the MOSFET oscillator is especially energetic, two effects will happen.  The first effect is that the total impedance of the full loop will increase, and there will be less power drawn from the (battery set + function generator).  The second effect is that if the MOSFET oscillator is especially energetic, then it is "stealing" the available power from the inductive resistor and the the 50 ohm resistor inside the function generator.

In terms of the Q2 MOSFET oscillator itself and it's power consumption, you can divide that into two parts, 1) resistive dissipation producing heat, and 2) the export of AC power into the rest of the circuit via the Q2 gate output port.

Continued in part 2....

MileHigh

P.S.:  I need to modify my highlighted statement above.  I was thinking that if you have three impedances in series, the highest impedance is the one that sustains the higher voltage drop and thus consumes the higher proportional power.  This is not necessarily the case here.  The impedance of the Q2 MOSFET array is an unknown and can be higher or lower.  The amount of power drawn from the battery will respond accordingly and I can't say that the impedance of the Q2 array will "go higher" if it is drawing more power.  All three power consuming agents have to be considered to know what will happen with respect to the division of supplied power.