Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Oh... regarding the high-heat, positive pulse mode:

This was demonstrated in the video demo, and it was also described in the paper(s) that contain the claims. And there is the discrepancy noted by PicoWatt concerning the possible bad mosfet.... which I think is caused by them operating in high-heat positive drive pulse mode until failure, which failure was unnoticed due to the lack of oscilloscope interpreting skills on the part of the experimenters.

This part of the experiment _must_ be repeated, the use of 48 volts instead of 60 volts explained, and the PW question about the damaged or missing mosfet cleared up, as the whole matter represents issues at the core of the validity of the entire Ainslie project, claims, and papers.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK

Your TarBaby circuit is not a replication of the NERD circuit
. Unless it is confined to an inductive element resistor of the type you showed but did not apparently, use in that calorimetric test apparatus
. Unless it is then confined to a detailed analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply
. Unless it establishes the rate of current flow accurately over the shunts
. Unless that flow is determined by fine adjustments to the switch
. Unless those adjustments related to that switch can be proved through close integrated power analysis
. All of which relies on the use of an oscilloscope that can store and download data

And since none of these criteria has been in any of your 'debunk' claims - then you have not replicated nor debunked the NERD circuit

. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not

We are yet to see
. Your colorimetric test results to give us some indication of the power dissipated
. Your tests results including some analysis of the power delivered by the battery
. Your tests results comparing that rate of delivery to the potential from that power supply

In effect your debunk is relying on data that you have not either fully revealed or not yet done.  You have implied a result without giving us precise data.  Which is troubling.  And you repeatedly refer to the RAT circuit.  What is this?  And how does it relate to the NERD circuit? 

Regards
Rosemary

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

You cannot couple the device itself and the measurements on the device to say if it is a replication or not.

TK's device uses the same components as yours, and is the same circuit, and the waveforms it displays on the scope are essentially the same waveforms that you display.

Your "inductive resistor" is just a commercial off the shelf resistive element used for heating water that barely possesses any inductance at all.  TK's use of some resistors wired together also would have a very small inductance.

The inductance of the resistive elements is secondary to all of the inductance associated with the interconnect wires.

All of your comments about making measurements have nothing at all to do with whether it is a replication or not.  There are many errors and questions associated with your measurements.  TK has and will do his own measurements and they do not in any way have to agree with your measurements.  That presumes that your measurements are "correct" and his are "incorrect."  Anybody that has been following both threads understands that that is a preposterous statement.

Other people building replications puts some heat on you because you are not the only game in town any more.  You are just going to have to deal with it.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary

Please answer the questions asked, or you will be completely ignored.

Which circuit diagram is correct, the one in Paper One or Paper 2, or some other version? This requires a single sentence to answer, and please be specific. Feel free to post the correct diagram here, so we will all know for certain just which one you endorse.

You claim again that you can produce the high-heat mode using positive going drive pulses, as shown in the second part of the demonstration video, using the full 72 volt battery pack (and of course the circuit shown in the first paper.)
Recall that for the video demo, you REMOVED one battery from your initial stack of only 5, leaving only 4 with a voltage of 48 volts.... and you have never yet explained why.
Until you explain this adequately or show the high heat mode using 72 volts..... I simply do not believe you. At 72 volts and a long duty cycle, with the positive-going gate pulse.... you are asking the single Q1 mosfet to carry 72/14 = over 5 Amps, and it is not adequately heat sunk. The data sheet for the mosfet indicates that the absolute maximum current and heat dissipation will be exceeded. So... you must use less voltage (like only 48 volts as in the demo.) Feel free to prove me wrong by showing a detailed demonstration using 72 volts similar to those I show in this thread.

Please explain the discrepancy in your scope shots that PicoWatt has pointed out.  If you are using a postive gate pulse with the schematic you say you use, a mosfet must turn on and there must be current shown in the "shunt" unless the mosfet is faulty or missing. Or unless there are other errors, like the use of yet another different circuit diagram, perhaps. Your constant stamping your foot and saying "it is so" doesn't make it so, nor explain why or how.

You are welcome to post in this thread, as long as you back up your assertions.... all of them.... with data and checkable references. Got that? If you assert that you have achieved high heat mode with positive going gate pulses and 72 volts, using the Paper 1 schematic.... then show a scope shot that supports the claim, or some other evidence. Otherwise you will simply not be believed and you will wind up being ignored.
If you simply continue to make assertions without the least evidence, especially if they involve misrepresentations or misinterpretations of MY data and reports.... you will be completely ignored.

In fact, if you don't answer the questions that have been asked of you, in your next post here, without equivocation or dissembling.... you will be completely ignored from then on. You have a single chance to show that you can carry on a constructive dialog.

[TinselKoala]

Now... for the last time on this thread, to address some of your points made here:

TK

Your TarBaby circuit is not a replication of the NERD circuit
. Unless it is confined to an inductive element resistor of the type you showed but did not apparently, use in that calorimetric test apparatus

You have yet to explain why the "inductive element resistor" is needed for this device, but a wirewound ceramic tube type was required for your other circuit. Since both the loads that I have INDEED used in "that calorimetric test apparatus" have the same resistance of 10.3 ohms and the same inductance of about 74 microHenry... the only real difference is that the load I prefer to use can be easily and completely submerged in oil. I can easily, however, reproduce the measurements you made with a thermocouple attached directly to your water heater element hanging in the air. Unfortunately data acquired by that method is unreliable at best and completely useless for the purpose to which you have put it. My method is better, so unless you can come up with some real reason why my loads aren't equivalent and the "effect" depends on having the water heater load.... I'll continue to use the resistors, whether you think it's a replication or not. I'll also not be using the white pegboard or the clipleads.

. Unless it is then confined to a detailed analysis of the wattage delivered by the battery supply

Confined? Are you limiting the kinds of measurements I take, and if I take extra ones, it's not a replication? Please, that is not a coherent objection at all.

. Unless it establishes the rate of current flow accurately over the shunts

I can and have "established the rate of current flow" more accurately than you have over the "shunt", more properly called the current viewing resistor, and of course this is a basic circuit operational parameter.... even though the current through the CVR is not all the current flowing in the circuit to the load.

. Unless that flow is determined by fine adjustments to the switch

By "switch" I presume you mean the gate drive, whether from the FG or the 555 circuit, since this is the only adjustment available to you. And of course, anyone who has watched my videos can see that the "flow" is indeed determined by fine adjustments of the FG or 555 power in my demonstrations. You are ignoring or missing what you don't want to see. I've demonstrated this fine tuning and its relationship to the current several times.

. Unless those adjustments related to that switch can be proved through close integrated power analysis

I have subjected those adjustments to analysis by the Clarke-Hess 2330 integrating power analyzer. What do you mean by "proved" in this context? Are you saying that, unless Tar Baby is overunity, it's not a replication? That is the "Mylow" objection and it's not valid.

. All of which relies on the use of an oscilloscope that can store and download data

Correction. Only the last item, the integration of an instantaneous power waveform made from the multiplication of the CVR trace and the battery voltage trace... only that item needs the DSO. And of course..... I have one available and will be using it when the time comes. And I will be doing the measurements both as you do them, Rosemary... and also correctly. Just as .99 showed in his simulation results, an overunity math result is easy to get if the measurements that go into the computation are improperly obtained.

And since none of these criteria has been in any of your 'debunk' claims - then you have not replicated nor debunked the NERD circuit

There you go again, claiming distortions of the truth. If you don't want to call Tar Baby a replication of your circuit, you really should point out how it is different. And I agree.... I have not yet even BEGUN to debunk the NERD circuit. Where did I claim to have done so?

. We are well able to take water to boil with the use of 24, 36, 48, 60 or 72 volts applied from the source
. All with varying levels of efficiency
. And all levels measured to exceed COP Infinity
. None of these applied voltages represent any undue stress on Q1 or Q2 whether we use 4 in parallel at Q2 or not

Claims without evidence are against the rules in this thread and will result in your being completely ignored. This is fair warning, and this is hopefully the last time you'll try it.

All levels measured to exceed COP Infinity? Exceed COP Infinity? COP > INFINITY, then? Are you quite sure of this?

I really don't think you have shown evidence for this, anywhere or any time. But it would be easy to do.... just show that your batteries do not run down, by the simple Dim Bulb test.

We are yet to see
. Your colorimetric test results to give us some indication of the power dissipated
. Your tests results including some analysis of the power delivered by the battery
. Your tests results comparing that rate of delivery to the potential from that power supply

Some of this has indeed been presented, even if "delivery to the potential" doesn't make sense. The Clarke-Hess has been deployed to good use and doesn't seem to object to the high frequencies, and has provided hard numerical data concerning the power from the battery and the power to the load. In addition two Dim Bulb tests of running batteries have already been performed, along with the LEDs of Doom which show the direction of dominant current flow.  But we have not seen any real data from you regarding these matters. The papers have so many errors and unanswered questions that they must be considered completely unreliable, and the experiments described should be repeated, with these issues in mind. The differing schematics, for example, and the PicoWatt bad mosfet issue alone are enough to cause the papers to be questioned.

In effect your debunk is relying on data that you have not either fully revealed or not yet done.  You have implied a result without giving us precise data.  Which is troubling.  And you repeatedly refer to the RAT circuit.  What is this?  And how does it relate to the NERD circuit? 

Regards
Rosemary

It's too bad that you feel troubled. You should feel troubled, because my "non-replication" of your RAT team device is calling into serious question your claims, and will continue to do so. And I'm afraid that any complaint from YOU about my "imprecise data" is going to be met with great amusement every time. You still haven't retracted your claim based on your incorrect "25.6 million Joules" bogus calculation, remember. So any talk from you about data precision or calculation isn't going to be taken seriously, because we know your history in those matters.

You are in a rather strange position, Rosemary. This is the first time that I can think of that an uncooperative claimant is making demands on a replicator, demanding more data and more precision than the claimant has actually shown. Shouldn't you be preparing for your testing, so that you can "debunk" the debunker with tests and demonstrations of your own? I have shown a number of subtests and manipulations that you don't seem to believe. OK... then show your circuit behaving differently under the same circumstances. Otherwise... your demands fall rather flat.

Now... this will be the last of this. As I said in the post above, you are welcome to post here.... but you will be ignored completely if you overstep the boundaries, and especially if you make claims and assertions without evidence.