Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Amazing.
The guy just doesn't want to do any of his own homework, it seems. And when he's proven wrong he deletes the proof and continues to make the same accusatory claim. That is truly amazing. He's graduated from NERD Novice to full-blown NERD Collaborator with that move, right out of the Red Queen Ainslie's playbook.

It's too bad that he never actually admitted that last fundamental error. Perhaps he saw it, realised how inefficient his circuit actually is when analyzed properly that way,  and that was what prompted him to want to discard power analysis and start looking at energy instead. A fresh new fertile field to err in.   

And when the deletions and edits that change meaning start happening, you know the end is near.

[poynt99]

Ah well, it's par for the course in these circles. 

Life goes on. 

[polln8r]

Poof! Whoosh! And--in the blink of an eye--it's gone.

[fuzzytomcat]

Poof! Whoosh! And--in the blink of an eye--it's gone.

FTC

[TinselKoala]

Well.... let's review.

Gmeast began by looking at the NERD circuit and rejecting it out of hand as unworkable, but he was curious about the other COP>17 claim from the Quantum article.

So he started building that one. Immediately he posted the "Has anyone actually built this thing" post with the "It does not work"... when he discovered that it made an exactly inverted duty cycle and could not be used to make the dutycycle claimed by Ainslie in the Quantum article.

So he modified the circuit to use his own timer or pulse generator or oscillator. And he decided to use gate driver chips since he knows mosfet circuit design and PWM circuitry and measurements so well. And he had trouble making the "Ainslie oscillations" and never really did duplicate her "random aperiodic Hartley oscillations"... since he used a scope that didn't have the aliasing and Moire patterns of the Fluke 199's low- resolution display.

But he found that a true duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON didn't produce any appreciable load heating, so he went to a duty cycle of 25 percent ON and a higher frequency than Ainslie used in order to have anything to measure at the load that could be called "heating".

But he still couldn't see anything like a recharge going back to the battery so he had to incorporate a recirculation diode that didn't appear in the Quantum circuit at all. Nevertheless, he finally got measurable load heating and was able to make DC power comparisons.... and found massive OverUnity in this "replication" of a circuit Ainslie couldn't even contemplate much less produce and test. Not 17:1, but still some respectable numbers. Clearly OU.... and clearly wrong.

He repeatedly "made the same mistake twice" by applying the duty cycle twice to his input power calculations, in several different ways, giving him a spuriously low calculated input power value. An example of this incorrect calculation method is shown below. Calculated correctly his measurements yield perfectly ordinary efficiency numbers, which at least speaks to his ability to write down numbers from boxes.

He clung to his "overunity" result in the face of several different clear... or more or less clear... explanations and examples of his major error, until finally -- apparently with egg on his face, 0.75 egg -- he melted down in a squall of insulting foulmouthed vituperation.... and a short while later he caused to be removed the entire record of his work from public view. The whole thread is simply gone.

Fortunately I have many images of his posts from that thread, so it's not completely gone from the ken of man.