Testing the TK Tar Baby

[WilbyInebriated]

or  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxkjvKBPQjo

[TinselKoala]

TK:

Do the NERDs list the part numbers for the resistors somewhere?  They may be counter-wound non-inductive resistors.

MileHigh

I have never seen a part number for these resistors in the NERD data. Of course, they also list the part number of their function generator incorrectly....

Certainly, had I used special counter-wound noninductive resistors, I would have said so and listed their part numbers.  Wouldn't you? I might even have wired them in counterparallel pairs... like they clearly didn't.

Instead, they list them as indicated in their papers, one list of which is reproduced below. And in the video at least, they certainly don't look like anything but common power resistors, and they have plenty of wire length attached to them, much more than Tar Baby does.

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I

The NERD load was of course not in any kind of pressure vessel. It was open to the atmosphere, and its container can be seen in the videos.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

In the second NERD paper, page 2, Table 1, the value of the "shunt" or current viewing resistor is given.
One hundred and ten nanoHenries. In the video of the demo, the apparatus is shown and these resistors appear to be ordinary power resistors of the common "ceramic" wirewound type. However they are not 1 Watt but rather 10 Watt resistors. Yet the paper appears to be describing the same experiment and apparatus shown in the video.

Not actually.  There is a 10 Watt resistor that is disconnected.  It was provided for in the event that we needed to test higher amperage flow.  The resistors that we use to gauge our current were 4 x 1 Ohm in parallel.  It's a shame that you could not show this with greater clarity.  Or was that deliberate?  One never knows TK - if you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts - or if you're responding to a rather desperate compulsion over which you have no control.

Perhaps this is yet another typo.

Or not?  Take your pick.  I'm reasonably certain that you're not so much concerned with the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it - as you are with the 'spin' as Goebbels would put it.

Strange, though, that nobody has told me that my CVR is using 10 Watt resistors where I should have been using 1 Watt. Therefore, the preponderance of data suggests that the NERD device did in fact use the 10 Watt resistors in the paper, since they certainly did in the demo video.

Not actually TK.  But far be it from me to prevent you inventing some bases for your objections.  You can hardly promote them from the facts.

I measured the inductance of one of my resistors and it measures 7 microHenry. Therefore, calculation says that the stack should have 1.75 microHenry inductance, and in fact the meter gives me a value something under 2 microHenry for the stack in place on the board. That would be 1750 nanoHenry or well over ten times the inductance reported for the same parts by the NERDs in the paper.

Which is an interesting if utterly irrelevant 'real truth'.  Based as it is on the assumption that we're using 4 x 10 Ohm resistors.  Golly.

I've made a video illustrating these measurements, including "calibrating" the Pro'sKit meter against commercial loads of known (labelled) inductances.  It's uploading now and will be hidden in the usual hiding place.

One hopes that it's presented with some level of good lighting and clear argument.  That would be a welcome change.

Clearly.... there is a discrepancy somewhere. How did the NERDs get such a low inductance value, using the same kind of resistors as I am using?  Either their common-appearing wirewound ceramic power resistors are different in some hidden way, or they used different resistors altogether than what was shown in the video, or.... their reported inductance reading is wrong.

You've made a glaring omission of another relevant option.  Here it is.  'Or you're misrepresenting the facts.'

Once again, a simple 5 minute video showing the same things that I show in the present video would answer the question once and for all. Use the Ainslie inductance meter to measure some marked, known inductances, then measure the questionable inductances. Simple and definitive. Here is where I remind the readers that no calibration data whatsoever has ever been shown by the Ainslie team, and in fact they have reported temperatures of 104 degrees for boiling water, without blinking an eye.

We most certainly DO make the calibration of the measuring instruments known.  And the data rests on those calibrated instruments.  I'm not sure of the sense you're using the term 'calibration'?  And our temperature of the load resistor in the water showed 104 degrees.  I never measured the water temperature.  But since boiling was evident - then I think one could 'speculate' that it was in the region of 100 degrees.   I would have thought?

The resistors can be seen fairly well in the shots attached below.

I think you need to refer to Poynty's work on this TK.  His investigation was thorough.  Your's not so much.  And your selection of 'shot' not entirely representative of the 'real truth' - again, as MileHigh puts it.

Rosie Pose.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So TK.  On the whole I'm inclined to think that your 'claimed' replication falls on it's knees at every point.  I think you need to start again.  And I'd recommend that you do this with some adequate measuring instruments.  As fine and as antique as are your own - they do not meet the required measuring standards.  And then you need to measure the appropriate 'thing'.  So far we've seen no detailed analysis of any current flow at all.  Perhaps you misunderstood our claim.  Or perhaps you deliberately misrepresented our claim.  I'm not sure.  And nor do I much care.  Bottom line is that your arguments are spurious and unsubstantiated.  I would be delighted to see a genuine effort at replicating our claim and then seeing how this effects the draw down efficiency of the battery supply.  That would be an interesting thread - INDEED.

Regards,
Rosemary