Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

I KNOW this.  I've addressed it.  The voltage across the current sensing resistor BELIES this.

Rosemary

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

Do you see in Groundloop's drawing that I referenced (reply#732) how in the drawing on the left, the MOSFET is turned on and current flows?

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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?

Got that, Bubba?

Are you losing your control there?  TK?  Again?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

Do you see in Groundloop's drawing that I referenced (reply#732) how in the drawing on the left, the MOSFET is turned on and current flows?

PW

Picowatt - again.  Spare me the rather fatuous requirements you have to point out the 'bleeding obvious' because the inference is that I don't understand.  Of course I understand Goundloop's point.  He is showing us that at at the 'on' period at Q1 the FG supply is in parallel to the circuit supply.  During the off period of Q1 the FG supply is in series with the battery supply source.  Effectively therefore he's showing us that the FG is inputting energy during the period that the switch is off.  I counter that argument - both of yours and his.  If the FG was putting in current during the 'off period' then it would be evident over the CSR's.  It's not.  On the contrary - the precise oscillation phase at this point shows an entirely negative voltage.

Regards,
Rosemary

[picowatt]

Picowatt - again.  Spare me the rather fatuous requirements you have to point out the 'bleeding obvious' because the inference is that I don't understand.  Of course I understand Goundloop's point.  He is showing us that at at the 'on' period at Q1 the FG supply is in parallel to the circuit supply.  During the off period of Q1 the FG supply is in series with the battery supply source.  Effectively therefore he's showing us that the FG is inputting energy during the period that the switch is off.  I counter that argument - both of yours and his.  If the FG was putting in current during the 'off period' then it would be evident over the CSR's.  It's not.  On the contrary - the precise oscillation phase at this point shows an entirely negative voltage.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I am not discussing whether current is being supplied by the FG or not.

I am only wanting to now if you understand how the MOSFET is being turned on in the left drawing, and current flows as I stated, and in the right drawing the MOSFET is turned off, and current flow ceases.

Simply yes or no, do you understand or not?

PW