Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

Oh yeah there's nothing like a good VDG. Yours sounds like it's bordering on dangerous... a proton accelerator kind of thingy....
We tried to reproduce an antigravity claim once by making 2 opposite-charged VDGs with the same physical dimensions you describe, but without the N2-filled column; we regularly got 4-foot long discharges along the belts. We did use some active spray too but it really wasn't needed for our purposes. We tested the voltage by using _giant_ spheres in a calibrated gap arrangement suspended from the ceiling and were able to get 1.2 honest to goodness megavolts tension between the top terminals. The things would make every metal projection in the entire lab warehouse section start spraying corona. In the dark it was somewhere between awesome and really scary.

[picowatt]

TK,

Based on my experience, I would vote "REALLY" scarey for your setup...

Only knocked myself out once...  It could really reach out and grab you if the discharge term was set too far away...

Dry weather was awesome.

Sorry for the off topic...

PW

[TinselKoala]

LEDs of Doom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8YQMHXR-Q

What is really interesting to me is that, doing nothing else other than using a bipolar pulse or a positive offset on the negative pulse, the Q1 mosfet turns fully and cleanly on during the NON_oscillating phase and heats up the load like an electric coffeepot with 1.5 Amps or more draw as indicated by my series DMM at the battery. When I use a strictly negative pulse so that only the Q2 transistors are doing anything, the oscillations pass only about 50 or 60 milliamps of current.... and with my nice insulated container, this seems to be enough to _keep the thing from cooling off_, until the next bout of "tuning" and turning some mosfets fully on while "tuning" and not recording data, and the load is carrying over an amp of current and heating up like an espresso pot.
And this happens during the part of the cycle where there are NO oscillations... the part where nobody is looking.

And of course as long as the oscillations themselves have sufficient amplitude they will light up the LEDs, both of them, regardless of whether the Q1 is switching cleanly or not.

[TinselKoala]

Now I'm wondering if any of the NERD published data... by which I mean scope shots or actual spreadsheet dumps from the scope.... do any of their data show the characteristic drain behaviour that I have identified, that shows one or more mosfets turning fully on during the _non-oscillation_ phase of the waveform cycle?

That is, instead of the non-oscillation portion of the drain trace being at or close to battery voltage, it appears instead at or near the ground or zero volt reference level?

[MileHigh]

Hey TK:

Nice little clip on the LEDs of Doom.  I am going to be a stick in the mud on you.  Yes the LEDs showed AC current no doubt, but it would have been preferable to have wired then in series with the CSR.  In series with the CSR they are a "sensor" for the series current flow, whereas in parallel they are sensing when the voltage across the CSR exceeds a certain threshold in either direction.  Of course that clearly indicates AC current.  In parallel they also "interfere" with the functioning of the CSR.  Please don't mind me I am just being picky.  The clip is still definitive and shows that there is AC going through the CSR.  Plus when Q1 turns on like you said and if the LEDs are in series then you could blow an LED.

When you think about it, the MOSFET array when oscillating (No Q1 action) is a black box that is taking pulsing DC current in on the input side and generating an AC current signal on the output side.  Inside the black box you have an oscillator, DC in, AC out.

My "LEDs of Doom" concept is to have back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery supply.  Remember that Rosie Posie is excited about the notion that current is being returned to the battery while the Q2 array is oscillating.

So you can envision the following:  The "Deluxe LEDs of Doom:" Back-to-back LEDs in series with the positive feed from the battery, and your back-to-back LEDs in parallel with the CSR.  You power up and you see pulsing unidirectional current flow from the positive feed from the battery and bidirectional current flow through the CSR.  That would be most interesting and thought provoking for some people out there.

Think about this:  The RATs are looking at the CSR and seeing AC current through the CSR.  Therefore the conclusion is that "current is being returned to the battery."  But what's really happening is that inside the circuit there is a black box that takes pulsing DC current in and outputs AC current out.  So it would appear that this engine inside the black box is throwing them off.

Disclaimer:  This is all preliminary and food for thought.  I am not on the bench and that always has to be factored in.  I have clearly been tripped up in the past and there is a 100% chance that I will be tripped up in the future.  I simply can't think about all angles all the time and sometimes I am simply wrong.

When you think about it though there is a certain elegance to this.  It basically says that a CSR in series with the positive lead from the battery will NOT be in agreement with the CSR in the RAT circuit.  We know that there is a fundamental flaw in the RAT circuit because there are two current return paths to the battery, through the existing CSR and through the function generator.  I am assuming that Poynt's reverse-engineering of the RAT circuit in the RAT demo clip is the definitive description of the topology of the circuit.  In addition, we know that there is an engine inside a black box in the RAT circuit that takes pulsing DC current in and then outputs AC current through the CSR.

So the Deluxe LEDs of Doom test, assuming it indicates what I think it will indicate, would tend to support this preliminary theory.

MileHigh