Testing the TK Tar Baby

[mrsean2k]

Look, if you shut up and read the thesis you might learn something; these particles travel faster than the speed of light, right, so naturally we can't see 'em, yeah, because photons can't catch them, OK? And presumably the bit about head-on and side-on collisions never happening is in the pipeline.

[gmeast]

I too initally believed gmeast to be acting in good faith and to be a person of integrity, since he quickly identified the problem with the 555 timer published, and never corrected, by Ainslie so long ago in the Quantum magazine article.

But after this latest, I see that I was mistaken.  He resorts to the same kind of lying misrepresentation and claims without reference, the same kinds of self-contradiction, the same kinds of personal insults and innuendo as his mentor.

Nobody except Ainslie is blocked from replying directly to this "tread", unless Stefan has blocked them for some reason of his own.

Now... just where have I suggested that gmeast is in error for using "PWM percentages to define his power percentages?" I'd like to see a link to the precise place I said that and just how I may have said it..... since I've carried out tutorials on just how to use digital oscilloscopes and their math functions including live realtime integration of instantaneous power curves to give total energy integrals.........

And surely gmeast knows that only people who are registered on that forum are allowed to see the images... unlike here, where all is revealed to everyone who is curious.

And I'm also wondering just where anyone insulted gmeast personally yet. But we can certainly start, if that's how he wants to play.
Even though he has now revealed himself as a bigoted, sexist, bloviating idiot liar who contradicts himself then whines about it later trying to change the meaning. 'NOT MORE THAN 0.8 VOLTS'.... well, if it was not more than, say 0.7 volts, or not more than 0.78 volts.... why not say that then?  Gmeast reported a voltage drop of 0.8 volts on his 24 volt battery supply, plain and simple, and now he's trying to weasel out of that report.
The facts remain:
Gmeast found that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article did not perform as claimed.
Gmeast is not using the circuit published by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not using an equivalent load to that used by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not operating at the same frequency as Ainslie.
And so on. In short, he has actually refuted Ainslie's claims in the Quantum article by NOT BEING ABLE to reproduce her effects using the published circuit, or even another circuit operating at the claimed duty cycle and frequency of the Quantum article. He has reported these facts and then he has proceeded to allow distortions of the interpretation of these facts to proceed unchecked. The Quantum circuit has no diode, no mosfet gate driver, and has a timer that produces a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load. This is not the circuit gmeast is testing or reporting on.

Hi guys,


I've just built what was easiest for me to build.  I can't afford any expensive scopes or analyzers, nor will any companies loan one to me.  I built a real nice digital Poly-Phase PWM for the work I was doing with Bob Boyce's 3-Phase Toroid self-battery-charging thingy that Johan, down in South Africa got the world excited about ... and me too.  It hasn't worked out because Johan has hushed up (it was supposed to be an open-source effort ....NOT) and Bob Boyce has stopped emailing clues as to how it 'really works'.  I just got interested in the Ainslie thing because I have a good PWM, and a working engineering knowledge of most things, and I can solder.  I've come to the conclusion that it is very hard to use electrical power, then through some means of conversion, or alteration, turn it back into another usable form of electricity with a gain.  But ... I truly believe that there can be a Heat-Equivalent Gain in a system ... that is 'Apples IN, and Oranges OUT instead of Apples IN and Apples OUT. 


I'm actually setting out to do very much what Rosemary did initially with the (what I call) the Equilibrium Heat Loss Test.  But, I will first characterize my batteries as part of the test regime and run my new heater tests within the margins of the batteries' discharge curves.  I will not try and determine power into the system using 'power shunt' calculations although they can be valid if you know how to deal with current lag and so on.  My circuit is the same as the one shown in the 2009 publication.   It shows a 'recovery diode' in that publication ... you guys call it a "flyback diode" ... as if you guys really know what "flyback" means in engineering terms.  BUT ... there is one main difference with my hardware ... I'm running my PWM and FET Gate Driver off of the 'bottom battery of my 24V stack (2 x 12V x 7Ah SLA batteries).  There will be NO chance for arguing power 'somehow' entering the system from a separate control circuit source such as a function generator.

Regards

[TinselKoala]

Now.... does he mean that it took 3 hours for his insulated load cell to increase the temperature of 175 mL of water by 14.4 degrees C?

It takes (14.4 degrees x 175 mL) = 2520 Joules to heat that water that much. 3 hours is 10800 seconds, and a Watt is a Joule per Second, so the average power needed simply to heat the water is 2520 Joules PER 10800 seconds, or 2520/10800 = about a quarter of a Watt average, over the entire period.  (or 0.233333333..... Watt if you prefer.)

The circuit, according to gmeast's measurements, took 0.43885 Watt to do it ( measured to the hundredth of a milliWatt how? ), for a heating efficiency of 0.23333/0.43885 or a little over 50 percent. Most of the losses probably occur in the  mosfet itself, and through the insulation of the load cell.

Where did gmeast's " .9766867Watt to do that" (sic) number come from, can anyone tell me? Is this a calibrated measurement?

Well, a lurking poster nfeijo is on the ball, and has pointed out that I forgot to multiply the "calorie" figure from gmeast's report by 4.184 to convert to Joules.
So the math becomes 2520 Calories x 4.184 Joules per Calorie = 10544 Joules, so over the 10800 seconds  we do arrive at a figure of around 0.98 Watt average power necessary "in theory" to accomplish the heating. Yet gmeast found that his circuit used less than half that much to do the trick. Do we know the details of how his experimental measurement was obtained?

My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted.

And thank you, Gmeast, for posting your information here. It makes it a lot easier to interpret when we have all the data.

You do realise, I hope, that the circuit you are working with is not the circuit Ainslie used for the Quantum article. And of course the frequencies and duty cycles you are using are nothing like what she claimed to use.

My circuit is the same as the one shown in the 2009 publication.

What 2009 publication? Ainslie has one real publication, and that is the Quantum magazine article, which used.... according to her.... the circuit below. No diode. The diode only showed up when the original circuit was analyzed and it was demonstrated not to work as claimed. And where are the mosfet gate driver chips in any circuit Ainslie has ever claimed to have used?

[TinselKoala]

I am puzzled about the scope traces though. The displayed "numbers in boxes" don't seem to agree very well with what the trace shows.

I count about 19 full cycles in 6 horizontal divisions, at 0.5 microsecond per division.  This gives me 19/0.000003 or about 6.33 MegaHertz for the oscillation frequency.
Am I making a silly math error again?

[gmeast]

Well, a lurking poster nfeijo is on the ball, and has pointed out that I forgot to multiply the "calorie" figure from gmeast's report by 4.184 to convert to Joules.
So the math becomes 2520 Calories x 4.184 Joules per Calorie = 10544 Joules, so over the 10800 seconds  we do arrive at a figure of around 0.98 Watt average power necessary "in theory" to accomplish the heating. Yet gmeast found that his circuit used less than half that much to do the trick. Do we know the details of how his experimental measurement was obtained?

My apologies to gmeast, my thanks to nfeijo.... and why did it take so long for anyone to check my math and find my error? Especially since I showed my working, it should have been easily spotted.

And thank you, Gmeast, for posting your information here. It makes it a lot easier to interpret when we have all the data.

You do realise, I hope, that the circuit you are working with is not the circuit Ainslie used for the Quantum article. And of course the frequencies and duty cycles you are using are nothing like what she claimed to use.

What 2009 publication? Ainslie has one real publication, and that is the Quantum magazine article, which used.... according to her.... the circuit below. No diode. The diode only showed up when the original circuit was analyzed and it was demonstrated not to work as claimed. And where are the mosfet gate driver chips in any circuit Ainslie has ever claimed to have used?

I know more than you hope I know.  I'm not shooting for an exact replication ... I never claimed to be.  I'm investigating the possibility of a "Heat-Equivalent Gain" from an electrical system.  That's it.  Rosemary's investigation seem the best place to start ... or carry on from.  I had no place to start  until this 'Inductive Heating Element" approach passed under my nose.  I have my own twist is all.


In the 2002 Quantum Mag article there is NO diode.  I never could get that to work.  Ainslie never claimed to use any gate driver chips.  Only I have because I have not been completely successful with the 555 circuit, only with my digital PWM and driver chip.  My PWM and UCC27322 driver chip takes about 1/4 (or so) the power of the 555 circuit anyway.  Who would want to use the 555?


If my investigation(s) can substantiate her theories (which are way over my head - by the way) I'm glad to have been of some help.


You will find the 2009 Publication on my FTP space.  I just put it up there for you.  It seems to be a re-cap of the 2002 Quantum article but I really don't know anything else about it.  I found it on a search while doing my homework before starting all of this.


Here's the address for the 2009:


http://02d1852.netsolhost.com/radiant/Heater/electric_heater_experiment.pdf


Regards.