Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Ok, thanks. It really can't get much clearer than that, can it.

The above analysis is about as simple and unambiguous as it gets.


My instincts tell me that if I divide Tar Baby's input power by, say, 2.... I'll be able to prove overunity performance too. And since 2 is clearly less than 3...... I'll have more OU than Glen. (Since dividing by a smaller number yields a larger answer).

[TinselKoala]

picowatt said,

She also stated that she has corrected the errors in her documents.  Did I miss her corrections regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 even though there is sufficient gate drive indicated to do so?

She's corrected nothing, only altered some things to correspond with reality after the fact. All of the things that _really_ need correction would invalidate the entire set of experiments and the manuscripts entirely, and she knows this fully well.

The "Official Publication" of her second daft manuscript on Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics "peer-reviewed" vanity blog still has the Q2 stack of four on the right hand side, in conflict with the schematic in the first daft manuscript "published" there. No retraction, no statement of error has appeared anywhere. Stella Nokia's two comments calling the manuscript's problems to the attention of the editors are still the last comments posted on that article.
And even more hilarious, through all of this, she has NEVER corrected, in any version, any of the cartoon "explanations" of the functioning of her circuit, which have the SOURCES of mosfets Q1 and Q2 wired together, the Gates of Q1 and Q2 wired together, and the Drains of Q1 and Q2 wired together.  In short, these cartoons, all three of them, and their attendant "explanations" have nothing to do with the actual circuit used, and it is impossible to reconcile the explanations given with the _actual_ wiring used, since the actual circuit has the Sources of Q2 connected to the Gate of Q1 and vice-versa.

Note the screenshot below. This is one of three similar cartoons in the daft manuscript. In Ainslie's crabbed scrawl we can clearly see the designations of the mosfet "legs" or pin assignments. This is a shot taken just now from the "corrected" daft manuscript on her honeypot forum.... the latest and greatest "edit" with the schematic "corrected" to show Q2s on the left. Too bad they didn't "correct" these cartoon representations, which are "explaining" something that corresponds to NO circuit that Ainslie has ever actually shown. They were clearly still made when she and her crew believed that they had all five mosfets in parallel.

Even more  important than that, though, is that all of the schematics in every version of both manuscripts are lies, because they falsely represent the position of the current monitoring resistor with respect to the function generator's Black output wire. IN EVERY PHOTO OF EVERY APPARATUS AINSLIE HAS EVER SHOWN, this black lead from the FG is clearly seen to be connected directly to the battery negative at the circuit's common ground point, which is incorrect because it provides a current path that bypasses the CVR. The schematics were only "corrected" well after the actual data was taken, when this "error" was poynted out to Ainslie in the forum. The experiments were NOT done with the schematics pictured, the CVR data was NOT taken correctly and the manuscripts are simply lying and must be withdrawn for this reason alone, but there are many other reasons as well.

[poynt99]

Greg has been laughing at himself for his silly "divide by 3" mistake he made. Good thing he figured that out on his own. 

What is he going to do when he realizes his even sillier mistake of derating the battery voltage by the duty cycle? 

[TinselKoala]

Is he going to issue a "revised" calculation, where he goes ahead and applies the whole 25 percent duty cycle fully twice? The suspense is killing me.

[TinselKoala]

Bada-bing, bada Boom! And there it is, folks, error upon error compounded, false conclusions that aren't supported by facts or "sanity checking" at all.

Heck, if I had twice or three times the power coming out as in, I'd build another identical unit and run the first one on the output of the second one, through a cap/diode, and then use the output of the second one to run the first one. Wouldn't you? Of course if the load is being heated by zipons instead of regular electrical power that wouldn't work, would it.  In fact .... that's probably why the overunity result ONLY APPEARS IN CALCULATIONS OF THIS KIND, not in any real form that can actually be used, or measured by different means.


Incidentally, I'm loving the current hypocrisy about the DMM measurements. When I did DMM measurements on Tar Baby, months ago, I was perfectly aware of their usefulness in this manner -- .99 is not the first to explore this issue, although his videos are very well done and very helpful-- and I even showed how my DMM measurements agreed with Ohm's Law at a number of different DC levels, they agreed with a moving coil analog meter, and with scope measurements using my HP180a scope's graticule markers and amplifier setting. And yet, Ainslie was profoundly dismissive of my DMM meter readings, even though she could not actually refute them. Of course I was showing things she claimed were impossible, like the current flowing through the function generator, things she still cannot account for or grasp.

Now, of course, DMM readings are fully acceptable on the NERD side of things .... because they are being used by a sycophant instead of a skeptic.

What a bunch of howling errors and conclusions though. Everything from the false precision of a tenth of a milliwatt in the claimed measurements, to missing the accurate values by a factor of FOUR, or three, or two, depending on which incorrect calculation he's laughing about today.

Of course there is one way to protect oneself from ridicule for these mistakes.... simply refuse to post any more real data or calculations.  Or at least, say you aren't. But then when you do, you should be extra careful that you don't stick your foot even further down your throat.

I'm not going to show any more calculations in this forum or argue about them because I have 3 conservative methods for running the numbers and they all check with each other.  - ooohh ... a one-sentence paragraph ... someone will say something about that, I'm sure. Oh look, now it's 3 sentences, never mind.

Three different methods, all making the same mistake, so of course they all check with each other. The lack of understanding of the effect of duty cycle in this person who claims to understand PWM power calculations is astounding, really, and the clear evidence for the lack of understanding is in his recent explanation and "correction" of the divide-by-three error.