Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Groundloop,

TK, Yes you are right. Again, I want to keep it simple.(You will use power to charge the Gate capacitance of the two MOSFET etc.)

Your input here is appropriate and rendered with your typical genius at economy of expression.  Thank you.  And thankfully too, you're talking about the technology - which is a rare thing on this thread.  It is my opinion that you're over simplifying.  And there are considerable variations between our oscillation and a Colpitt oscillation.  But perhaps YOU can explain the questions that I put to picowatt?  This would be appreciated - especially as picowatt simply took umbrage.  Still not sure why.  Perhaps he didn't want to address those questions.  In any event - they apply to 'precisely' the argument that that picowatt was promoting.  So.  Let me see if I can repost that and then please let me know what you think.

Here is that post with editing applied to highlight the points made.

picowatt - I take it that you're arguing that the positive bias from the function generator (FG) that's applied to the gate of Q2 enables a flow of current from the battery supply source?  This current flow then passes through the FG probe.  Then it passes out of the ground terminal of that probe to the source rail of the battery supply. Or to put it as Poynty Point prefers - to the battery's negative terminal?  Therefore does the battery REMAIN connected.  And therefore is there no significance in that oscillation.  Is that your argument? Because then, the short answer is 'NO'.  It is not possible.  So WHY should I need to 'understand it'?...

IF the gate at Q2 allowed any current from the battery supply to pass through the FG probes and to its ground terminal then it would also need to be passing a current from the battery that would reflect above zero.  In effect - either Q1 or Q2 would be continually ON.  Therefore the current sensing resistor (CSR) (NOT CVR as TK keeps putting it)) would NEVER record a voltage less than zero.  At best it would would show a small fluctuation at the point at which the signal changes to apply a positive bias first at Q1 and then at Q2.  Which then may result in that voltage trending to zero.  But it would never CROSS zero.  EVER.  Whereas, in point of FACT what we see is that when the signal transfers - then the voltage across the CSR ACTUALLY swings to a NEGATIVE voltage.  Unless, of course, you're arguing that the battery is now discharging a current from the DRAIN rail as an applied negative voltage.  Perhaps?  In which case we do, indeed, have extraordinary batteries.  And we would also need to have rather EXTRAORDINARY transistors...

You will notice here - Groundloop - that I'm highlighting this as it's also your own argument.  Your annotations state 'every time the function generator goes (to a) negative pulse then you add the 12 volts to the circuit'.  Effectively you're saying that when the negative charge is applied to the Gate of Q1 then the input from the FG is in series with the battery supply.  Which in terms of standard predictions would add those applied 12 volts to the sum of supply voltage - those plus/minus 2 to 3 watts.  If this was the fact then the voltage across the current sensing resistor (CSR) would show a positive voltage that would thereby increase by the sum of the applied voltage from the FG.  Your see this I trust?  Effectively and correctly, you're showing that at this transitional phase of the switching cycle, those two supplies now fall in series.  Which is correct. Now.  Bear in mind that the CSR is also directly in series with the negative rail of the battery supply source.  Therefore it will show the voltage bias - whichever way it runs.  And it will also thereby reflect the polarity of that applied voltage and the consequent current flow.  Being in series with the supply at this point in the switching cycle, then it would also be applying a positive voltage to the battery which would, under all standard predictions, result in a decrease of the supply voltage. However.  During THIS precise phase of the oscillation - when the signal supply is effectively in series with the battery supply - as you've shown it - then the voltage across the CSR is NEGATIVE.  Which would 'belie' the addition of any positive voltage applied or 'input' from the FG.  The relationship between our oscillation and Colpitt's or even Hartley's - is only superficial.  We all show an oscillation.  But Colpitt and Hartley rely on the use of a single transistor and parasitic oscillations are evident in their results where both can trend to a 'chaotic' condition.  Our own oscillations NEVER become chaotic until we operate it in a 'booster converter mode'.  And more importantly - nor do they result in the 'gains' that are measured and evident over our apparatus. 

Please let me know if I've misunderstood you.
Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - here's an interesting admission...

I must be confused about something again. It looks like you are asking me to make the same oscillations as hers in fine detail,  but with different circuitry and device settings.

I thought that much was a 'given'.  Surely?  That's where this 'replication exercise' becomes a parody and has always been a parody.  And very  entertaining it is too.  Indeed.

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Guys - here's an interesting admission...

I thought that much was a 'given'.  Surely?  That's where this 'replication exercise' becomes a parody and has always been a parody.  And very  entertaining it is too.  Indeed.

Regards,
Rosemary

There you go again you idiot. You once again are misstating and mischaracterising that discussion.  You are right about one thing though: you are being parodied and mocked. But you are wrong about another thing: I am using the EXACT circuit you claim to have used, and I am using the EXACT components you claim to have used, with the exception of the load and the clipleads. If you claim that your overunity and battery charging depend on that exact water heater load.... then say so right out loud. And I am making the same waveforms and the same "negative" average power computations. What is so hard to understand about that? That qualifies as a "REPLICATION" in just about anyone's book...except yours, because you know one thing: you cannot acknowledge my work because you KNOW that I can and will show that Tar Baby is NOT overunity, because you can't control the testing or the interpretation. 

Once again: I OFFER TAR BABY TO ANYONE qualified that Stefan will designate, to be tested ALONGSIDE YOUR DEVICE, in the same way and analysed in the same way, and I claim that Tar Baby will perform just like NERD. Just like. You dare not meet this offer and you dare not make a similar offer yourself: there will never be any independent testing of your device at all. And even the tests you claim to be preparing won't be the right tests, this we know.

What about the phases, Rosemary? What about the One Joule = One Watt Per Second, Rosemary? What about my power measurements that show the same negative power as yours, Rosemary? What about thinking about what Groundloop ACTUALLY said, not how you twist his words, Rosemary? What about your continuing blather and insults, Rosemary? What about your "bereavement" and all the work you should be doing now instead of cluttering up this thread with your distortions and lies, Rosemary? 
What about correcting your many errors and retracting the conclusions based on them? What about simply admitting you were wrong about:
My color coded wires, for example? You ranted and criticised me for not having color coded wires..... What about the use of the initials CVR? You make an insulting comment about that... and I refute you with four million references to manufacturers and users of CVRs, definitions, mentions of them... you are WRONG once again. Will you correct even this mistake?

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.   Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Got that, Bubba?

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

In Groungloop's drawing "wraosc.gif" of reply #732,  the schematic is a simplified representation that is the equivalent of your Q2 array.  The battery and resistor depicted in the source of the MOSFET is the functional equivalent of the function generator.

In the left drawing, the source of the MOSFET is biased negative with respect to its gate, so the MOSFET turns on and current flows from the main battery positive, thru the load resistor, thru the MOSFET drain to its source, thru the 50 ohm resistor, thru the bias battery and returns to the main battery negative.

When the polarity of the battery is reversed, as in the image on the right, the MOSFET turns off and current flow ceases.

Again, the depicted battery and 50 ohm resistor at the source of the MOSFET are the functional equivalent of your function generator.  The left image depicts the period when the FG output is negative, the right image depicts the period when the FG output is positive. 

PW 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

picowatt

Again, when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, Q2 is biased on and current flows thru Q2 and the FG.  I have said it several times and yet you continue to want to twist it into something else.  If you  do not understand what I am writing or how a function generator works, by all means feel free to ask and DISCUSS (my emphasis), but please do not tell me what I am ACTUALLY saying or put words in my mouth.  It is rude, disrespectful, and not at all professional.

I am not sure where we're missing each other.  I most certainly am ALSO referring to this statement.  'when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source of Q2, Q2 is biased on and the current flows through Q2 and the FG.'  I am countering this.  IF the FG is applying a negative voltage to the source of Q2, then it reflect as a positive voltage across the CSR. That voltage would therefore resolve as a positive voltage during both switching cycles.  So.  It is self-evidently NOT what is happening.   

Its a wonderful day outside and I really do not feel like playing word games or seeing my words twisted about right now.  Assuming the rest of your posts are similar to your very first paragraph, I choose to read no more of your posts at this time.

I am sorry to read this.  Because I'm arguing a point that you refuse to address?  Is that really in the best interest of science?  Or of coming to some kind of resolution related to our technology?

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Pose