Testing the TK Tar Baby

[mrsean2k]

@TK


Thanks for the explanation. Use of a material that reacts more quickly such as oil would have been counter-intuitive to me - I'd have guessed that the less sensitive it was, the better on a sort of longer-runs-average-the-defects basis.


So for @gmeast's setup, to get results that were consistently misleading in the direction of COP >1, what are the likely causes? The only ones I can think of are:

1)  Inadvertent experimenters bias. Even at this stage, I don't doubt he's actually doing experiments and recording results in an honest way within the confirmatory restrictions he prefers. But looking at his overuse of decimal places, there's room for unconscious bias when setting up, taking measurements etc. etc.

2) The way the batteries are discharged during the "active" run leaves them with a misleading impression of the true remaining capacity. Are there any effects that could cause this and make his measurement of voltage and consequent derivation of capacity dubious?


S

[TinselKoala]

Very cool. Same here just about. Yours looks like maybe a better build. Very nice and neat on the armature. Is that a fan motor?  This thing is so torquey. ;]  I see the casing is the magnet field return. Like it would not work so well if the casing were plastic.
Mine had 2 welds next to the mounting holes which I drilled. The mounting holes provide a good alignment to put it back together. Had a bit of white silicone as a case seal.

Yes, radiator fan motor. Unfortunately I don't have these motors here with me now, just the pictures. I got them at Princess Auto, surplus, in Toronto and I think I remember that they were branded AC/Delco. Mine weren't welded together at all, just aligned by the dimples you can see, then sealed with silicone RTV. I resealed the one in the photo several times, you can see some of my blue silicone.

Was thinking to try mags on each sector on each side of the rotor then making my own U shaped paths for each pair, and make a casing out of plexi.

That's a good idea; it would probably improve the torque, although they seem to work pretty well already.

Honestly I have been looking at it for 2 days and I dont understand it. lol  The brush positions are at near 12 oclock and 2. I wonder if it is to make up for the missing portions of the magnet? And the winding angles, a wire goes outward at an angle then bends at the edge and comes back in at the same angle if you were looking at that side of the plate. So maybe the 12 and 2 positions of the brushes mean that there are only some of the windings active at any certain time. Not like a typical DC motor where all coils are active at all times. Constant torque. But these seem to be constant and torquey too. 

I couldn't figure out mine either, especially since the brushes are big enough to span several of the windings at the contact face on the armature. I wish I had it to look at now, but it's elsewhere.

Thats interesting that not all the windings are in series but separate. I thinks. Im going to test it after this. Just thought about all this while posting here.

Remember the homopolar motor thread I described using wires outward to replace the copper disk? This reminds me of that a bit. ;]

Mags

Tesla designed a homopolar variant that used a disk cut into spiral segments, similar to your radial wires but bent into a spiral form, more like your motor armature. Very interesting indeed.....  My motors came with a fairly large capacitor directly across the terminals, did yours?

[picowatt]

Hi picowatt,


Thanks for your suggestion.  I do, as you had noted, believe the batteries are necessary.  For the last two days I have been testing what (I think) you suggested above.  If you look at the last bunch of stuff I posted on Rosie's site, I show some discharge curves ... one for the batteries over a 6-1/2 hour period (light blue 200Ohm load)) and another is the circuit running the RL (purple curve).  The curves have substantially the same slope for much of the run.  This simply means that they are discharging the battery at the same rates, the slope is everything in this analysis.  The KNOWN power of the battery curve is 3.21Watts at the selected voltage data point.  But the circuit is producing 4.21Watts to maintain the equilibrium differential temperature of 34C as evidenced by the differential temperature calibration on RL that IMMEDIATELY followed the circuit test using a precision DC power supply.


As the second test of power consumption, I hooked the DC power supply up to the batteries through protection diodes at B(+) and B(-).  I ran the batteries down to the data point on the curves, 25.34V, and then adjusted the power supply to limit voltage and let the current float to whatever load is being put on the supply.  The battery voltage was maintained at 25.2V to 25.5V and the load on the power supply remained at 3.3Watts for more than 16 hours before the current began to climb (very slowly). This second test fully supported the first test.   I'm using two 12V 7Ah batteries in series for my 24V bank. I chose this size of battery so I could have a measurable discharge rate.  That has proven to be a valuable measure in my testing.  My testing suggests that there is something fundamentally sound about the technology.


Rosie used big batteries.  Her discharge rate was likely undetectable.  All I'm doing is exploring the possibility:  that for a given electrical wattage 'into' an inductive resistive heater, you can get a greater equivalent wattage 'out' in the form of HEAT.  THIS REQUIRES THE BATTERIES TO DISCHARGE! That's what this is all about.  Not your agenda or Rosie's agenda or anyone's agenda ... just pure, simple research.  NONE of my measurements are made with scopes or poynty-principles any longer, just battery voltages and time. I now have the results that suggest that something just might be valid here. 


Just get off of the HATE WAGON.  All kidding aside, there's obviously a collective intelligence here.  'HATE' is a poor, ineffective and wasteful way to channel it.


Thanks picowatt for chiming in.  Regards,


GME

gmeast,

Why do you suppose the current began to rise at the end of your run with the supply connected to the batteries?

The hazard in using the batteries with this method, as opposed to trying a cap in place of them, is ensuring that the batteries have discharged below the supply voltage low enough to be off the diode conduction knees (using just a single diode in the positive leg will reduce the knee issue a bit). 

I would charge both batteries and allow time for them to acheive their rest voltage.  Connect the supply and carefully advance the voltage adjust on the supply until current flow begins to be observed and then back the voltage control off very slightly until zero current is observed.  Allow more time (with the supply still connected) for the batteries to rest from any voltage bump applied during the supply V set and readjust supply if necessary to ensure its voltage is set just below Vbatt at rest.  Connect the circuit and let it run.

As the circuit runs, the batteries will discharge slowly and at some point both the supply and batteries will be powering the circuit as the diode(s) in the supply leg(s) begin to conduct.  This will slow the battery discharge so additional run time will be required to discharge the batteries below the supply voltage setting.  At some point during the run, you should expect to see the current indication on the supply begin to increase.  Continue the run until the supply's indicated current reaches its maximum value and stabilizes.  Once a stable current value is reached, the observed current should be very close to that required to operate the circuit.

You could do a similar run with your fixed resistors in place of your circuit as a load to confirm this method.

Careful setting of the supply voltage to just below the battery rest voltage prior to the run will decrease the needed run time.  Alternately, you could temporarily disconnect the supply during a run to allow the batteries to discharge a bit and then reconnect the supply (without changing its settings) and allow the supply's indicated current to stabilize (up or down depending on the battery state).  You could also temporarily add an additional load (one of your fixed resistors) across the batteries to speed their discharge and reduce the required run time to acheive a stable current reading on the supply.   

What is the quiescent current of your PWM and driver circuit?

As for looking at your recent runs, only members over there can see those.  I have seen very little of your data, mainly just text.

Again, just food for thought,

PW

[TinselKoala]

And ... of course TEMPERATURE ... you idiot. There's nothing wrong with my interpretation of anything with regards to these tests.  Other electrical parameters are irrelevant.  Calorimetry is irrelevant. You simply are going to refuse to accept any evidence at all that just might provide some validity for this technology. 

Of course... I am supposed to read your mind, just like I am supposed to read Ainslie's mind when she leaves things out or mistypes or misspeaks. Of course TEMPERATURE, you idiot.
Yes, there is something greatly wrong with your interpretation. Anyone with real knowledge and ability in experimentation would see your MEASUREMENTS and your CONCLUSIONS FROM THEM and think, here's an error, BECAUSE the results are in conflict with what is already known and accepted. That is, overunity results are BY DEFAULT assumed to be in error, until and unless they are definitely proven not to be so. This is done by comparing different methods and arriving at the same results, and by proper calibration of instruments and proper experimental technique. Go ahead and take your protocols and measurements, and my suggestions (along with PW's of course), to any qualified third party with experience in researching electronic systems for energy efficiency and see what their opinion is, if you don't believe me.

I'm presently discussing these results with some seasoned researchers.  My initial visits opened my eyes to the realization that real scientists and researchers don't talk, act or react like you do. You are completely devoid of any of the professional qualities that define true scientists and researchers. You are a fraud.

No, I'm not a fraud, you are. I have earned the right and privilege to be called a scientist and have been judged competent by my real peers, and the calumnies that you cast here are meaningless, just like your "research". And I'll stand by everything I've said in this thread as being valid and scientific in approach, and I'm prepared to defend those points in a public discussion with you and as many of your "seasoned researchers" as you can muster.
But do be sure to take all of the information in this thread, and the information that you censored out of your threads, to your seasoned researchers so that they can know the FULL STORY. You can download my Ainslie database for them to look over if you like. You call me a fraud-- without evidence or references to support your accusations. Yet I have evidence to support mine: your math errors, your censorship, your false starts and your coverups, your lack of homework and your lack of familiarity with your topic. So now you are just being silly.

Tell me, because I really don't know, was this thread started for the sole purpose of disproving and discrediting Rosie's research?

Did you read this thread from the beginning? Did you read all the other threads where Ainslie has been cooperated with, replicated, found faulty, found to be a liar, and where she eventually got herself banned?

This thread was started to do something that nobody else seemed willing to do: build a duplicate of Ainslie's claimed NERD circuit and see what it actually does. That's why it's called "Testing the TK Tar Baby", and that's why I never referred to it as a replication UNTIL Ainslie herself acknowledged that it was. How could it not be, if it uses the same circuit as she claimed, the same component values and produces the same objective data? All of which it does, in spades.

And, just as I was able to do in 2009 with the claimed COP>17 circuit, with the help of .99 and MH and PicoWatt and some others, I was able to find what happened, where Ainslie's errors lie, what they mean and how they were produced, and what the correct story really is. Some of what I learned came from my hardware builds and measurements, but by far the most DISCREDITING AND DISPROVING of Ainslie's "research" came directly from her OWN DATA that she published herself: the 5 or six different circuit diagrams describing the same experimental apparatus, the cartoon in the second paper that even now doesn't correspond to the claimed circuit used; the scopeshots that show current drain when she claims there isn't any, the other scopeshots that DON'T show current drain when there definitely SHOULD be, indicating blown mosfets and totally invalidating both papers; the constant stream of lies and broken promises from Ainslie... all of which I have documented in my database and none of which was "rifled" in any way from Ainslie's computers, as she so often delusionally accuses.

You have helped in this, yourself, GMEAST. Your own work discredits and disproves Ainslie's claims rather soundly, and you've found out just why, too.

Why don't you report honestly what you DID find when you were working with something closer to the Quantum circuit and claims:
You found that the 555 timer did not work as Ainslie claimed, but rather as I explained long ago: inverted duty cycle.
You found that no significant load heating happened at a true ON duty cycle of 3.7 percent.
And you found that when the duty cycle that the original published circuit actually produced was used, 96 percent ON, that substantial load heating in line with Ainslie's data was observed.
And you found that, contrary to Ainslie's claim, the batteries did discharge while this heating occurred.
This didn't take you very long, so you abandoned that circuit, added a diode and a gate driver and some other stuff, you changed the operating frequency and duty cycle until you found some numbers of your own that you liked. That's fine... .but you really should not try to cover up what you DID find with regard to that Ainslie circuit that you started out trying to replicate. But you aren't getting anything like her COP>17 results are you.

The only reason YOU are being discussed AT ALL, gmeast, amateur fraudster and fool, is because of your attempted replication of Ainslie's circuit, which replication attempt showed that her work is so flawed it cannot even be called "work" in a real sense.

[TinselKoala]

@AlienSigns:
I see that Ainslie has referred you to her second "paper" for some theoretical grounding in her "thesis".

This of course is the daft manuscript that was rejected several times when she submitted it for publication, and finally she did manage to get it accepted for "publication" on Andrea Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog. The version that she referred you to, though, has been altered from that official publication on Rossi's blog in several ways. If you compare the schematics given in the two versions you will see that they differ in a subtle but very significant manner.
In addition, the cartoon illustrations in that paper, in all versions, which purport to describe the circuit's performance.... do not actually correspond to either of the given schematic diagrams; rather, they correspond to an earlier, misconception that Ainslie had when she believed that all mosfets were wired strictly in parallel as her advisors had suggested, when she was suffering from blowing the single mosfet version due to lack of proper heatsinking and too-high currents. The IRFPG50 has a maximum current and power dissipation rating that would have been exceeded by Ainslie's attempts to use 72 volts, a long duty cycle, and a total circuit resistance of around 14 Ohms with a single mosfet on a bit of aluminum channel, so the "5 parallel" mosfet solution with proper heatsinks was suggested to her by her advisors, but when she (or someone) wired up the board they got the mosfets backwards. Ainslie did not realize this when she drew her cartoon depicting the Q1 and Q2 mosfets in strict parallel. See below. The "explanation" is explaining some different arrangement of transistors than was actually used in ANY of Ainslie's experiments for which we have evidence. It cannot apply to the circuit claimed to have been used in the paper's experiment.

These are things that invalidate the papers, yet Ainslie doesn't seem to realize or care about their significance.

To decode Ainslie's contemptible idiosyncratic squiggles: the tops of both transistors are labelled "D" in her squiggle. The centers are labelled "G" and the bottoms are labelled "Q2 S" and "S Q1". And the little Zener symbol on the "legend" is labelled "BD" for Body Diode. Apparently Ainslie failed printing in school as well as math.