Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I took a peek on EF, and there is new RA thread.  Our old friend that is trying to sell magical elixir water fires all of his guns at Poynt and claims he is clueless.  lol

I still laugh thinking about his clips where he fell flat on his face and it was apparent that he was completely clueless about electronics and was barely able operate his oscilloscope - after 10 years of 'researching' on the bench - and the heaps of praise that Rosemary gave him as she called him an "expert."  I always imagined steam rising from the top of his head because his brain was on overload during all of the embarrassing pregnant technical pauses.  The giant rat's nest of alligator clips was too much.

A great moment was when myself and Poynt explained to him that here is a zero volts across an ideal inductor with DC current flowing through it.  He was shocked and did not know how to react.  lol

Those are the moments that make these soap opera dramas kind of fun!

Who would have thought that you could sell water for a buck a liter?  Who would have thought that you could sell water for thirty bucks a liter?

That is flmping amazing. Look at this quote from Err-on:

COP 17? Not with the Quantum circuit. As Glen said, that diagram doesn't even give the right duty cycle claimed in the article. There are many contradictions and misinformation that was provided to everyone from Rosemary.

Uh-huh.

And I got banned from his forum for insisting on this point, among others, and arguing with him, Joit, Ainslie, and just about everybody else there, and on this forum too, for WEEKS about the duty cycle inversion .... and I was the very first, as far as I know, to point out the inverted duty cycle -- on June 20, 2009 -- and give the explanation of it to Err-on himself. Yet he gives me no credit at all... because that would be extremely embarrassing for him. Or would be if he had any kind of conscience or integrity. But at least he has to admit, now, that I was and continue to be right about that circuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g

Here, for example, is a video that I had to make, SPECIFICALLY FOR AARON, trying to explain this duty cycle issue and the mosfet Drain voltage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA

I also made several other videos testing HIS OWN CIRCUIT and demonstrating that he was wrong about how it behaved... due to his mistaken conception of mosfet high-side load switching behaviour.


And has anyone wondered where the precise 3.7 / 96.3 percent duty cycle split came from? It is the MINIMUM DUTY CYCLE INDICATION that the Fluke 123 and 199 ScopeMeters are capable of resolving. Rarely they might go a tenth of a percent shorter.  In other words.... even these numbers are likely to be wrong. The OFF time could have been even less than 3.7 percent, as long as it was OFF for some tiny portion of the cycle, the Fluke would say 3.7 percent. How do I know this? Because I tested the circuit with BOTH the 123 and the 199 scopemeters against a fast risetime precision pulse generator, the DP-101 ... something nobody else did. And I showed the EXACT SAME oscillations on those scopemeters that Ainslie specified. And because I then showed that the "random aperiodic Hartley resonance oscillations" as she termed them at one time...  were spurious artefacts of digital display of sampled signals (see the video below) .... they then claimed that I did not manage the oscillations... and then went on to use OTHER CIRCUITS to make OTHER OSCILLATIONS to produce their results... then denigrated ME for not performing a "replication". And all because I showed them their errors.

Grr. This thing keeps rising up from the grave, like the brain-eating zombie that it is. And as usual... nobody has refuted anything I found about that circuit, and yet they do not give me any credit for explaining to them FIRST:
the inverted duty cycle issue
the bad power computations
their lack of understanding scope triggering and ac/dc coupling
the aliasing Moire patterns mistaken for "random aperiodic" oscillations
the lack of _real_ battery charging as opposed to fluffy charging
the ability to charge an external cap to high voltages from the spike
the ability to genuinely charge EXTERNAL batteries with the spike
comparisons with other mosfets
and a few other firsts as well.... like ACTUALLY BOILING WATER with the circuit, which I did and published on Aug 8 2009, almost exactly three years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8

Do they ever mention this? No. And it is very clear in this video, between 3:10 and 3:50, that I am getting the exact same oscillations that were analyzed so well by MH and others in the thread that polln8r referenced earlier, and also that the 2sk1548 makes these oscillations better and faster.
I am so disgusted by all the prevarication and mendacity associated with this Ainslie thread over there that I can hardly type.

[TinselKoala]

And again.... Paul Lowrance asks a good question:

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  « Reply #2322 on: October 31, 2009, 03:47:05 AM »    To be honest it should be clear what I'm asking for. If someone has done the experiment, then why not post it. In looking through the thread I saw the temperatures produced by the Ainslie device, but I did not see the control experiment where it showed how much power was required to heat the same component to the same temperature.

Paul

And nobody mentions that... once again.... I did it, and I did it first. Just displayed the results in a different... better, more easily interpretable form:

       

[fuzzytomcat]

    ...................

Grr. This thing keeps rising up from the grave, like the brain-eating zombie that it is. And as usual... nobody has refuted anything I found about that circuit, and yet they do not give me any credit for explaining to them FIRST:
the inverted duty cycle issue
the bad power computations
their lack of understanding scope triggering and ac/dc coupling
the aliasing Moire patterns mistaken for "random aperiodic" oscillations
the lack of _real_ battery charging as opposed to fluffy charging
the ability to charge an external cap to high voltages from the spike
the ability to genuinely charge EXTERNAL batteries with the spike
comparisons with other mosfets
and a few other firsts as well.... like ACTUALLY BOILING WATER with the circuit, which I did and published on Aug 8 2009, almost exactly three years ago.
..................

TK,

I'll give you credit for all your findings, because they helped better educate me on weird pulsed DC circuits, as to what Rosemary ( inventor - expert ? ) was or wasn't telling me but now knowing that she couldn't tell me.

It was always the same with Rosemary showing her my results then they became just like hers ... my question to her was always "what does yours look like show me" and I never got anything .... blah blah blah. I know that Rosemary's constant editing her postings at Energetic, the deletion of 250 posting by the administration there was a big problem, including the way she ended up treating Aaron when he stopped his work on the device. Then there was Harvey, Ash and Andrew as soon as the last IEEE paper was rejected for the fifth time those three also went on the heap with the rest of Rosemary's prey. We all wanted it to work, everyone "BUT" Rosemary helped toward that goal with their best intentions and personal abilities to be viciously turned on in the end by her.

My quest for a COP>17 ended up looking for just a COP rating, boiling water was easy but drained the batteries down quickly with no device performance improvement. Then when Tektronix agreed to loan me a better scope than the TDS 3054C with the newer much better unit a DPO 3054, I became the thief that stole her technology and called it my own somewhere the location yet to be divulged where by Rosemary and then Tektronix's was being lied to by her and then they pulled their support to the Open Source community.

It's hard for some people to say they made mistakes, I made my share, but there are those individuals also that just want some how for it ( Ainslie ) to all go away, knowing a few of them. The whole experience made me look at experimental research not fully explained differently, doing better investigations prior to starting projects, not to take things at face value and of course what Intellectual Property Rights are.

You do fine work and I've learned a lot here and so have many others.

Fuzzy

[MileHigh]

I don't think it was mentioned but Poynt has given up on trying to teach Rosemary and left her to her own devices.  Of course she was showing how little she actually knows during the attempted teaching.  I find it disturbing how people that know next to nothing about a subject can still push forward in their abject ignorance with barely a second thought.  You think about the years of arguing it out with her and the whole time she was and is nearly completely clueless.

So Rosie can go back to her zipon fantasies and her preposterous claims about the Higgs boson.

I really hope nobody helps her with her testing.  I don't say that lightly but in this one case it would be poetic justice.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

This is the last suggestion I made regarding Rose's future testing (posted at her forum):

Rose,

Here is a suggestion for your testing. Average both the battery and CSR voltage traces and see what result you get for your computed mean power. This will not kill or diminish the oscillation in the circuit, in fact it may even increase the voltage swing a little.

Add a film type capacitor (10uF should suffice) across one battery as shown, and one across your CSR array as shown. Multiply the resulting power by the number of batteries you are using. Use 0.25 Ohms for the CSR value. You may find quite a different result for the computed mean battery power this way.

The capacitors are there to minimize the skewing effect of the parasitic inductance internal to the battery, and inherent with the CSR array.

This method will produce a battery power measurement that is very very close to the actual power used.