Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

 Rosemary:

Re: Request for documenting the test runs for the dim bulb testing.

It would not be desirable to see a dozen or more DSO captures in support of the dim bulb testing.  I would say that a maximum of four would be fine.  It goes without saying that the configuration of the circuit should be exactly the same for each capture.

For each DSO capture in support of the dim bulb testing we would like to know the details about the setup.  How many batteries, things like that.  We would like to see pictures of the setup.  We would like you to list the the DSO negative power measurement for each capture.  Therefore if you are going to use a 0.25 ohm current sensing resistor then you have to do the calculations to show us the measured negative wattage.  We also want to know what the function generator voltage is without it being connected to the circuit, for each capture.  So you measure it on the scope or with a multimeter, your choice, as long as you make the measurement.  We also would like to know what the current measurement in the running circuit is when checked with a digital multimeter.  If the digital multimeter is going crazy than use an analog multimeter.  We expect a few hundred milliamps of current flow so you ideally you would have an analog current meter with a full-scale deflection of zero to 500 milliamps, or a full-scale deflection of zero to one amp.

So you can imagine four captures with a text file that records the configuration and data for each capture.  If you want to be really nice you can put the whole thing into a spreadsheet.  There should be no resizing of the scope capture images.  You could also include the results of the dim bulb testing in the spreadsheet.  Then we can simply download the spreadsheet.

We want no ambiguities in the data because that causes doubt.  This is what open source is supposed to be all about.

I have just given you a few suggestions about documenting the "COP infinity" power measurements on the setup while the dim bulb test is running.  If you can think of any more things to add then please add them.  You know that you have been haunted by setup and circuit ambiguities in the past.  This is your chance to get it right and document yourself properly.

I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.

When do you expect to start the testing?

MileHigh
   

[PhiChaser]

@ TK: Yep, you nailed it exactly: Replies without answers...
@ Rosemary: Is a Joule still a watt PER second??
And are you EVER going to do the (Dim Bulb Test)?

Still a daily reader, I like anomalies...

PC

EDIT: That chiseled link cracked me up!!

[TinselKoala]

What I cannot understand is how someone could possibly be so "logic-challenged".

I mean here Tar Baby is:

It uses the same "schedule" of components as that published in the NERD papers, except for the substitution of my ceramic wirewound resistors for the Ainslie RV water heater element.
It makes the same oscillations, now at the same frequency of 1.4-1.5 MHz, under the same conditions as the NERD device.
It makes the same mean negative power product as the NERD device, and in addition shows a much more convincing negatively accumulating-- that is, decreasing --- energy integral, live on screen.
It produces _really_ high heat in the load. I got the mineral oil up to over 150 degrees C, and did it honestly and properly and that is the actual oil temperature, not some guesstimate of "tiny bubbles" or 104 "thereabouts from memory" degrees.

That is, it produces ALL of the actual data that Ainslie has presented in support of her major claim. Yet it does not prevent its own batteries from discharging.

But the main point I want to emphasise now is that Ainslie still says that Tar Baby has nothing to do with her circuit and claims.

We KNOW that she has deliberately withheld information about the circuit--- or at least the story of the Miraculous Mosfet Mistake is inconsistent--- therefore.... since she is SO sure that Tar Baby is different from NERD..... maybe it is.

In other words, to be blunt, perhaps Ainslie has once again been misleading us all about the actual schematic used. Is it in fact the one in the SECOND paper, instead of the first?
Because if the second paper's schematic is used, there will be no problem with mosfet overheating or destruction, because the Q1 ROLE is now played by four mosfets on heavy heatsinks, and the single mosfet is now in the Q2 role which just has to sit there and oscillate occasionally, never carrying more than a few hundred milliamps.

And also... is it possible that she is NOT ALWAYS using the rectangular pulse gate drive signal? Some of her scope data seems to indicate that other waveshapes may have been used and perhaps these might produce high heat in the load. As well as stressing whatever mosfet(s) are in the Q1 _role_.

In short, I can think of a couple likely explanations for why she is so sure that Tar Baby isn't a NERD duplicate. That is, her mendacity and prevarications.

I note that she has known about the strictly negative bias supply making a continuous oscillation mode SINCE LAST JUNE AT LEAST, as shown by her posts and discussions in the old locked threads.

Therefore.... Aliens? No, I don't think so.

ETA: I _know_ that this is not the way the Demo Video circuit was wired. I am satisfied that the Paper 1 diagram was used except for the position of the FG Black lead on one or the other side of the CVR. But recall.... Ainslie has repeatedly said that the Demo only _relates to_ her claims and her circuit. Perhaps she began using the other, actually more correct, circuit after the demo, to stop blowing mosfets.

[TinselKoala]

By the way... it seems that Ainslie thinks her vile hate-crime cartoon of two people she has never seen is somehow "protected speech" because it is "satire".

Well, sure, then it should be clear that when I call Polly Parrot a lying, ignorant, arrogant scrawny wench of a madwoman, or a mendacious overweening hypocrite, or a total drag on the community.... I am expressing my own rather considered opinion in a literary and satirical manner. Ho ho ho.

And when I present evidence that I am correct in all this satirical characterisation.... well, that's just entertainment.

(Some of my best friends like to prance around in their underwear sniffing flowers, and we find Ainslie's "satire" deeply offensive.)

[polln8r]

Hello polinater

Not sure that you intended it - but I am sincerely 'blown away' by that photo of yours.  It's really very, very good.  VERY Well done indeed.  Sorry that it's me who speaks up about it.  But WOW.  That's HIGH standards.  A fleeting moment of a 'fleeting event' through those thin black lines.  And a minaret pointing 'off center' and modestly and - slightly off target.  And the suggestion of a frame outlined by the silhouette of those disconnected leaves.  They float with the same sense of weightlessness.  A kind of 'gravity free' moment.  It's an EXCEPTIONAL composition.  Thank you for that.  I'm sure there are many here who appreciate such fine artistry.

Yours most sincerely
Rosie

If I  can manage it I'll try for another upload.

Rosemary,
   Thank you for your compliments on the photo, however, as a BFA I would say the 'artistry' of the photo is completely lacking. The only really remarkable part about it was that it could be taken at all, given the device used to take it.
polln8r