Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

I will answer you this one time.

No, as usual you are not correct. The first picture, labelled "INPUT", is the measurement taken at the location marked "INPUT MEASUREMENT" on the diagram.
The second is at the other location.

FROM MY POST:

The first shot shows the "input" power: the Clarke-Hess is inserted between the battery and the rest of the circuit:
Battery >>> CH2330 >>> Tar Baby >>> Load

The second shot shows the "output" power to the load; the only change made was to swap the CH2330 over to the output side, a matter of switching cables that takes about 30 seconds to do.
Battery >>> Tar Baby  >>> CH2330 >>> Load

Next.... the differences in current... a few milliamps ... can be attributed to the slight differences in wiring length in the two locations. You do not in any way "add" these figures together. They represent the average current flowing through the meter's very precise and very low-resistance  internal "shunt" -- hence through the circuit itself -- at the time the photos were taken, and are very reliable. You have no grounds for disputing them.... unless you want to demonstrate that they aren't reliable, by some measurements and data of your own.

Next... the CH definitely DOES take into account the oscillations and is NOT simply measuring a DC current. THIS IS WHY THE WATTAGE FIGURES DO NOT REFLECT A SIMPLE MULTIPLICATION. The unit computes and takes into account the power factor, and can display it if asked.

In the second picture -- the OUTPUT TO THE LOAD -- the voltage meter is showing the voltage that the load is experiencing, if you want to look at it that way. The voltage and current readings displayed on the meter are averaged over a suitable time constant that the meter itself determines based on the frequency it detects.

In other words, the Clarke Hess is detecting, computing and displaying the same information you get when you use an oscilloscope to multiply current and voltage to determine a power curve, and further, can integrate that curve to give the energy flow.

"WE none of us" means only YOU, in this context, Rosemary. The instrument reads what it reads, it is hooked up as it is hooked up, and the interpretation is clear... to those who know their subject, and I don't have to explain it to them, I allow them to make their own conclusions. You, however, not only do not know your subject, but you apparently cannot even read figure captions correctly... so I will give you the courtesy of an explanation.... something you yourself avoid when asked questions.

Why was the battery removed from the "high heat" portion of the video demo, leaving a battery pack of only 48 volts? This question is not answered in the papers, it is not answered in the video, and you have never answered it. And you aren't going to answer it now, either.

Therefore, back to BIPS.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

I've already listed the variations.  I'll do so again later tonight.

But in every case where actual data is available, Tar Baby does just what NERD does.

So you say.  But we've not seen this.  The battery oscillations do not have the same amplitude.  And I suspect it's because you're using a less inductive load resistor.

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?

I have answered this.  You have ignored my answer.

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.

So I'm not sure that this statement is correct.  Anywhere.  At all.

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.

I think a serious lack of the CH 2330 is that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with the oscillation frequency. At best it's an approximation - and you have not shown us the wattage number in the second picture unless the CH 2330 has calculated the battery voltage at plus/minus 7 volts.  Or unless that number now represents something else?  You do not specify this.

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.

This argument is somewhat meaningless.  We do not use the CH2330.  We calculate the current from the supply - under considerably more stringent conditions that are also based on the voltage across the shunt or CSR in our schematic.

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.

I am entirely satisfied that I have already pointed out where the Tar Baby varies from the NERD circuit.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Let me see if I can explain this again.  It will require that you read what I post here TK.

Our paper - which represents the whole of our claim - shows repeated experimental evidence of more energy being returned to the battery than being discharged from the battery.  This results in a negative wattage.  We present that negative wattage as evidence of an anomaly.

If you do not find a negative wattage, therefore, then you have not replicated our circuit.  It's that simple.

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

In the Ainslie paper the value of the load inductance, the "custom" water heater element that looks perfectly standard to me and others.... the inductance is given as 2.23 microHenry. I think the lead inductance alone would be greater than this. The inductance of the "shunt" resistor stack, 4 ordinary wirewound "cement" resistors in parallel, is given as 110 nanoHenry, a remarkably low value for wirewound resistors of this type. My own stack of 4, outwardly identical resistors, measures around 2 microHenry on my cheapo inductance meter.... which measures the known inductances I have available quite accurately.
I'd like to see these inductance measurements repeated on the NERD device.

And no, it's not "as simple as that."
You are resorting to Mylow-Allen logic just as I said you would. The Tar Baby isn't a replication, you claim...  because it's not overunity. And that's just ridiculous.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

In the Ainslie paper the value of the load inductance, the "custom" water heater element that looks perfectly standard to me and others.... the inductance is given as 2.23 microHenry. I think the lead inductance alone would be greater than this. The inductance of the "shunt" resistor stack, 4 ordinary wirewound "cement" resistors in parallel, is given as 110 nanoHenry, a remarkably low value for wirewound resistors of this type. My own stack of 4, outwardly identical resistors, measures around 2 microHenry on my cheapo inductance meter.... which measures the known inductances I have available quite accurately.
I'd like to see these inductance measurements repeated on the NERD device.

And no, it's not "as simple as that."
You are resorting to Mylow-Allen logic just as I said you would. The Tar Baby isn't a replication, you claim...  because it's not overunity. And that's just ridiculous.

TK.  We do not claim over unity.  What we state in our paper - for wider testing which is the purpose of publication - is that we have got the real measured and repeatable evidence - under a wide variety of settings - of an infinite COP.  This is using standard measurement protocols.  We define COP infinity as more energy being returned to the battery than first delivered by the battery.  Those numbers are unequivocal - carefully evaluated and widely accredited.  It does not help anything to simply state that it is 'ridiculous'.  We know this.  Which is precisely why we have written that paper.

And then, with respect, there is only one way to evaluate this - if that evaluation is sincere - and that is to see if you can replicate that number.  If you can't - then your replication has failed.  We can and do.  And we do it under the most stringent of applied protocols.  Look at our 3rd test in that paper.  Look at the current flow during the 'on' period of the duty cycle.  That's our 'water to boil' test.  Conservatively we were dissipating in excess of 120 watts.  And the current discharge from the battery supply during the 'on' period of each duty cycle was based on a voltage that varied between 0.002 volts and zero.  Not only that but our battery voltage actually increased over the test period. 

So. Again.  If you are going to replicate then you needs must find that negative value.  And I suspect that you cannot tune to that value as your scope is not able to show the sum - which is our easy and quick guide to the required settings.

Regards
Rosie Pose
added