Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The noise will be ignored.

The 'noise' as you put it  is the counter argument.  I see why you need to avoid this.  Your object is to try and convince our readers that you have replicated our circuit.  It is patently NOT a replication.  It lacks critical features - some of which I listed in the previous two posts namely

.  Oscillation amplitude over the battery is inadequate and variable between each switching period
.  There are no indications of the voltage across the shunt
.  Therefore there is no way to gauge whether the voltage is predominately negative
.  You need to replace the load with something more appropriate as the inductance is, we suspect, a critical factor

We are yet to see some conclusions drawn from the calorimetric apparatus that you've installed.  How and what do you determine is the wattage dissipated.

Regards again,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Regarding this email to Stefan:

>>It is clear from her last posts that Ainslie is not going to cooperate, that she continues to make false statements, and that she continues to make claims without adequate evidence.
Where have I made false statements?

>>She is trying to clutter up the Tar Baby thread with the same kinds of irrelevancies, ignorance and bad attitude that caused her own thread to be locked.
I am addressing certain inaccuracies.  That's hardly irrelevant.  And the locking of my own thread had nothing whatsoever to do with any of my input.  Unlike the rest of you, I never resorted to slander nor did anything short of defend my work - which is and was much required.

>>I am asking you, Stefan, to block her from posting in the Tar Baby thread. I stated the reasonable conditions under which she would be welcome to post and she immediately violated them and will continue to do so.
I see this now.  What you want is to flame my thread that it's locked.  Then prevent my protests on your own thread.  And leave unanswered and undefended the continuing allegations and insinuations that claim you've replicated and debunked our hard work.  Which would leave me without any kind of voice to protest a continuing abuse.  And you consider this fair?

>>If she is not blocked from posting she will be completely ignored, and so she will simply be wasting your bandwidth and her own time as well as adding distractions and hindering progress.
Very happy to be ignored.  Just as long as I can interject with the occasional and much needed contradictions against your own insinuations Tk.  That - at its least - leaves me with a voice.  Else I suspect that you'll not give a fair account of those tests as is evident thus far.

>>This is the first time that I have ever asked for anyone to be blocked or banned in any forum. I am in general against censorship of any kind. And I don't want to censor Ainslie either.... but I will not have her lying and distorting and making claims without evidence in a thread where we are trying to carry on a scientific investigation.  And every second that she spends commenting and making claims is another second that she is NOT preparing to perform her own definitive testing.
Yes indeed.  I see that now.  You are indeed very fair minded.  One just needs to see how you managed to get my own thread locked by your own controversial and slanderous allegations to prevent any progress to any kind of reasonable discussion. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Let me remind everyone again that this thread is about testing the Tar Baby. The only claim I have made is that Tar Baby performs just the same in all significant respects as the NERD circuit. If anyone is going to claim differently, they need to show proof by showing the NERD circuit doing something that Tar Baby doesn't, under the same conditions. Does NERD run without depleting its batteries? We will only find that out when it is tested. Tar Baby depletes its batteries when running. But in every case where actual data is available, Tar Baby does just what NERD does. I have asked some questions about NERD to help me in this effort... and the answers have not been forthcoming. Why was one battery removed for the second part of the video demo, leaving only 48 volts for the high-heat mode? That is just one question that has not been answered, in spite of constant protestations to "read the papers" which are fraught with errors and bad presentations.

I am sure that everyone with any electronic expertise understands how the Clarke-Hess is hooked to the circuit, and certainly the operating manual is on the internet for downloading by anyone who cares to. But for those readers who might not understand that the instrument is a sampling V-A-W meter and thus performs the exact same function as an oscilloscope's two channels monitoring voltage and current, sampling them, multiplying them, accounting for power factor phase shifts, and integrating if necessary...... here is the schematic showing how the instrument is hooked into the circuit. Obviously I only have one (of this model; I actually do have another CH available of a different model). So the measurements are made by unhooking it from one end and re-hooking it to the other end without changing anything else.

And... consistent with my main claim... I maintain that if the NERD circuit were hooked to a similar meter a similar result would be obtained. If someone maintains differently it is up to them to show the evidence. And once again... I have offered Tar Baby to be tested independently, side-by-side with NERD, by whatever method the tester chooses, as long as both devices are treated the same. That is, I am willing to have my claims tested independently at any time, and I am ready for this now.

And still further..... if someone doesn't believe that Tar Baby is an accurate replication of NERD, and yet cannot state just why, with references and data..... then perhaps they are posting in the wrong thread.

[TinselKoala]

The requirement that the 555 timer circuit (or other clock) be powered from the main running batteries has a problem.

With a positive going pulse, like that used in the high-heat demonstration, there is no difficulty and the circuit above can be used simply by swapping the 555 pin 3 and minus connections to the circuit and providing a suitable voltage dropping potentiometer to make the input voltage from the main battery's most negative cell,  to the 555,  adjustable.

For a negative going gate drive pulse to be used, as in the low heat mode which is supposed to be of most interest .... the pulse has to be negative with respect to the _negative rail_ of the main circuit.... that is, the most negative pole of the battery. An externally powered FG can do this, obviously, through the use of offset and pulse type controls. The 555 timer can do this if it's externally battery powered too, by wiring it "inverted" as I have shown above and have been using with Tar Baby.

I don't think a 555 timer or other simple clock, powered by the running batteries, can make a pulse that is more negative than the most negative pole of its battery. Hence it cannot be used this way to provide the negative going gate drive pulse. I think.

If anybody can come up with a simple solution to this little problem, or show that it's not a problem at all .... please PM me and I'll try it right away.


And there seems to be another little problem for replicators of this open source community effort free energy project.

The NERD RATs now seem to be claiming that a wirewound ceramic tube resistor stack won't work in their NERD device to prevent battery depletion, even if it is almost of the same resistance and inductance as the "custom" water heater element that they have used. Such a resistor was the preferred load for an earlier COP>17 claim using an IRFPG50 mosfet and batteries that didn't discharge.... but they can't be used in the present NERD device. Only the exact custom element they used will work properly, according to the current claim. This throws an obvious wrench into the replication efforts of others.

Fortunately... we know that Tar Baby isn't a replication, don't we.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK
Thank you for clarifying the position of the CH2330.  If I understand you - you're claiming that the first set of numbers on that instrument  represents the output and the second set of numbers represents the input - then correctly you should take the sum of both values.  Surely this is NOT what you mean?

Current at the output = 0.2386
Current at the  input  = 0.2291

I suspect that the amperage is determined as a DC value which means that the CH is simply giving the sum.  Which means that the wattage delivered by the battery supply is either 11.62 watts OR 11.157 watts determined as a product of the battery voltage 48.7 volts and the current.  However.  Neither number is evident on the CH2330.  And in any event you don't clarify what those numbers represent.  I can see the amperage and I can see the voltage over the first picture.  Not the second.  If the machine is not able to ascertain the battery voltage you can hardly expect it to represent the wattage accurately.

Therefore we none of us have any idea what it is you're hoping that the CH2330 is showing.  Hopefully you'll clarify this in the fullness of time.

Regards
Rosemary