Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Do you have any comments or thoughts to my bias current test on page 127 post 1899?

GL.

Not actually Groundloop.  I've yet to fully understand the purpose of your tests.  Isn't that 50 Ohm resistor in series with the INPUT rail as you term it - from the function generator's probe?  And not it's terminal?  So it would be on the labeled INPUT rail and not the OUTPUT?  I HAVE attached the schematic.  Getting quite good at this.  Sorry if those are the wrong terms but that's how MileHigh advised it should be referenced.  And I'm not sure that it even makes much difference.  But I'd need to know. And where are you taking the amp reading measurements?  In series with the negative rail of the battery supply?  Or in series with either the INPUT or OUTPUT as you put it.  I just don't know.

THEN.  I take it that you're using that same inductive resistor that you used in your tests on our COP>17 replication.  Did you ever manage to get that distinctive oscillation?  I seem to recall that IF you did - you reported on a zero evidence of any energy efficiencies.  Either that or you didn't get that distinctive oscillation?  I can't quite remember.  Well.  We know now that IF you use an element resistor that we're now using - then - surprisingly - there's very little evidence of RF.  I know this because IF I turn on my radio when our NERD circuit is running - there's not much evident static.  But when I turned on the radio with the use of our COP>17 wire wound number - there was CERTAINLY evidence of RF.  Lots of it.  Which means that I'm still stuck on the relevance of this test of yours.  Because they effect the oscillation in entirely different ways.  We account for this by the added mass related to the element resistor that is NOT available from that earlier wire wound number.

THEN.  Is that circuit oscillating?  I take it that it is.  In which case can you show us that oscillation?  Perhaps a scope shot across the CSR?

THEN.  Finally, I'm not sure about that ammeter of yours.  Is an IRON ammeter the same as an analogue meter?  I'll down load a picture of one - IF I can manage it.  In which case it will be out by up to and even greater than 30%.  We know this because we've actually applied both this and variations of the analogue number - including clamp probes directly over the wire.  They are really useful little meters apparently.  But they have a major drawback.  They simply don't measure accurately at high frequencies.  So.  If there is that typical oscillation and IF it is oscillating within it's usual frequency range - then that current reading may very well NOT be correct.  But that again depends on where that ammeter is positioned.  Is it on either the probe or terminal rail directly.  Or is it on the negative rail of the battery supply?  If the former it MAY be correct.  But I'm not sure because the 'bias' current is also effected by that oscillation to a certain extent.  But I'm not sure of the frequency of your signal.  And IF the latter then it will most certainly NOT be correct.  Not as a reflection of the amount of current that is flowing between the output and input of those probes.

I'm a plodder Groundloop.  And unless these things are clearly specified then I simply CAN'T comment.  But I don't mind 'assuming' if that's what I'm meant to do. 

Rosie Pose

I've downloaded FIRST your schematic and THEN the ammeter... I hope.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again TK -

No, Polly Spammer Parrot.
I just quote you, mostly...

See what happens when I quote you in full? I should think that you would be happy that I don't, since the more I do, the stupider you look.

I ALWAYS know that I've hit that HOME RUN - as I've mentioned before.  It's when you fill a page with utterly irrelevant statements of mine without any reference to DATES and thereby taken ENTIRELY out of context.  It's diverting.  I've also mentioned THAT before now.  But I do understand the need.  Without this our readers may be engaged by the occasional post I manage to squeeze in between yours and your team of vigilantes.

Ever rosy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for this?  I am under NO obligation to answer any question that you put to me.  EVER. If you want co-operation TK - then apologise PROFUSELY for your legal transgressions.  And then follow this up with an attitude of professional respect.  LOL.  Then I'll give you LOT's of attention. 

I am really interested to know what Ainslie thinks about this video, that she keeps trying to bury.

Especially since it directly refutes another of her inanities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc

But please answer Groundloop's question first, if you would be so "kind".

Rosie Posie

[Groundloop]

Not actually Groundloop.  I've yet to fully understand the purpose of your tests.  Isn't that 50 Ohm resistor in series with the INPUT rail as you term it - from the function generator's probe?  And not it's terminal?  So it would be on the labeled INPUT rail and not the OUTPUT?  I HAVE attached the schematic.  Getting quite good at this.  Sorry if those are the wrong terms but that's how MileHigh advised it should be referenced.  And I'm not sure that it even makes much difference.  But I'd need to know. And where are you taking the amp reading measurements?  In series with the negative rail of the battery supply?  Or in series with either the INPUT or OUTPUT as you put it.  I just don't know.

THEN.  I take it that you're using that same inductive resistor that you used in your tests on our COP>17 replication.  Did you ever manage to get that distinctive oscillation?  I seem to recall that IF you did - you reported on a zero evidence of any energy efficiencies.  Either that or you didn't get that distinctive oscillation?  I can't quite remember.  Well.  We know now that IF you use an element resistor that we're now using - then - surprisingly - there's very little evidence of RF.  I know this because IF I turn on my radio when our NERD circuit is running - there's not much evident static.  But when I turned on the radio with the use of our COP>17 wire wound number - there was CERTAINLY evidence of RF.  Lots of it.  Which means that I'm still stuck on the relevance of this test of yours.  Because they effect the oscillation in entirely different ways.  We account for this by the added mass related to the element resistor that is NOT available from that earlier wire wound number.

THEN.  Is that circuit oscillating?  I take it that it is.  In which case can you show us that oscillation?  Perhaps a scope shot across the CSR?

THEN.  Finally, I'm not sure about that ammeter of yours.  Is an IRON ammeter the same as an analogue meter?  I'll down load a picture of one - IF I can manage it.  In which case it will be out by up to and even greater than 30%.  We know this because we've actually applied both this and variations of the analogue number - including clamp probes directly over the wire.  They are really useful little meters apparently.  But they have a major drawback.  They simply don't measure accurately at high frequencies.  So.  If there is that typical oscillation and IF it is oscillating within it's usual frequency range - then that current reading may very well NOT be correct.  But that again depends on where that ammeter is positioned.  Is it on either the probe or terminal rail directly.  Or is it on the negative rail of the battery supply?  If the former it MAY be correct.  But I'm not sure because the 'bias' current is also effected by that oscillation to a certain extent.  But I'm not sure of the frequency of your signal.  And IF the latter then it will most certainly NOT be correct.  Not as a reflection of the amount of current that is flowing between the output and input of those probes.

I'm a plodder Groundloop.  And unless these things are clearly specified then I simply CAN'T comment.  But I don't mind 'assuming' if that's what I'm meant to do. 

Rosie Pose

I've downloaded FIRST your schematic and THEN the ammeter... I hope.

Rosemary,

The purpose of this test was to find out how much current the bias input will provide to the circuit during the
DC (no oscillation) phase and the AC (oscillation) phase. In earlier posts I have theoretical predicted that
the bias input will provide some power to the circuit and this test confirm this.

Yes, that is a 50 Ohm series resistor at the bias input and my Ampere meter is in series with that resistor.
I did use a fixed power supply to simulate the function generator so that resistor was needed. So this was
a simulation of what a function generator will do if connected to the circuit.

The Ampere meter used to measure the bias current is fairly accurate. This Ampere meter has a moving
iron connected to the needle to show current. Cheap Ampere meter usually have a moving coil instead.
I also did cross check the bias current with my digital Ampere meter so the values reported is a good
indication of the bias power into the circuit.

Yes, I'm using the same 10 Ohm wire wound resistor that I did use before. The RFI measurement I did
came from a frequency scanner that have a calibrated dBm scale. This scale is fairly accurate when the
pick up antenna is 1 meter away from the circuit. This measurement was to show that the circuit did
put out RFI. The level of radio waves energy was upwards to -30dBm so it can be compared with
the levels that a small transmitter (garage port opener) is putting out. So it is not bad. Just and indication
that the oscillation is there. The circuit IS oscillating when the bias is negative. (Just like the negative pulse
of the function generator.) I have used my o-scope also to see the oscillation and did report that in my test report.

I have not begun to take many o-scope shots yet because it is not needed in this test other than confirming that
the oscillation did run when simulating the negative function generator pulse.

I do not know what a "plodder" is, but I assume you mean that you need to get things explained very detailed?

GL.

[The guys]

We, the guys, would like to make it clear to everyone that we do not support Rosemary's claim or work in any way whatsoever and we dislike the way she often uses the term guys when making her posts.

As most people are aware, Rosemary has no support anywhere. No one ever supports her claims anymore.
So, stop using the term guys to refer to your audience.