Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again MileHigh

For what it is worth, here is your discussion about there being no power dissipated in a resistor if the "current and voltage are out of phase:"

It's from posting #2139 in your thread.

Here is what you said in posting #2157 on the same topic:

My comment in post #2163:

You never admitted that you were wrong.  Will you admit it now?

I don't understand you MileHigh.  Phase shifts are the factors that qualify the amount of energy dissipated.  Why don't you know this?  If current flow is 180 degrees out of phase with the voltage across a load resistor then the energy dissipated is ZERO.  It has NOTHING to do with the amount of energy delivered by the power supply.  In TK's published shot - the picture that he showed us on his post - showed a current and voltage at 180 degrees out of true.  Therefore - correctly - there should be NO energy dissipated at the load.  So WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO ADMIT?

What staggers me is this.  You guys flaunt a kind of pretended knowledge about power measurements.  But the truth is that none of you have a clue.  TK's trying to play 'catch up' and has at least shown us some competence in power integration - when he finally adjusted - as required - for impedance.  But he still doesn't understand the significance of the phase shift in the shot that picowatt asked for.  And he's given us a grossly inadequate number of samples.  Not sure of the number of sampling points.  But typically we use not less that 500 000 - that's half a MILLION - against not less than 10 switched cycles - and usually much more.  And he seems to think that he has 'calibrated' his machines - when all he's done is standardise their measurements - one with another - without any true calibration of any of them.  He expects that small battery of his that's powering the 555 - not to discharge - but takes the trouble to use a battery that is incapable of getting recharged in the first instance.  Therefore IF there is any energy being returned to the switch - then it's never going to be measured.  Then he claims that the input into the circuit is FROM that non rechargeable battery - which is unarguable.  But nor is it shown to be sufficient to answer the amount of energy dissipated in the circuit.  And this he does through the simple expediency of NEVER concluding the measurement of the amount of energy actually dissipated against the amount of energy actually delivered.   He leaves that for everyone to 'infer'.  And that's just touching on some of the many distortions.  YET YOU ALL APPLAUD HIS EFFORTS.  While those efforts are exhaustive -  in truth - they're also utterly meaningless as they support no arguments at all - either for or against.  And not you, no picowatt - nor farmhand - nor Phichaser - nor any of you - EVEN TURN A HAIR?  NOT ONE QUESTION ASKED?  EVERYONE APPLAUDING?
./...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And the entire lack of intellectual honesty in that paraded nonsense where he shows the battery depleting?  Quite apart from his vulgarity of association - that 'making out with a dog' bit - is the vulgarity of its inconclusiveness.  Which batteries were recharged?  Which weren't?  Where in God's name can he find a rechargeable lead acid battery or similar battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS' - for God's sake?   And at that level of charge - how does it 'skew' the evident voltages in all those batteries in series?  He doesn't even disconnect them to establish their true voltage. Again.  He gets that applause.  Do you LIKE to see that display of vulgarity - that 'boomp boomp' nonsense.  Do you seriously propose to take this as a serious exercise when it is grossly presented and utterly flawed?  Is that your own 'bar' set to standards that YOU are happy with?  Because if so - then I really want to disassociate from your standards.  Lack of professionalism is the kindest thing that can be said about it.  Which makes your support of it WHAT?  Dependable?  Deserved?  I don't think so.  And one day I'd be glad when any of you, that is you, picowatt, farmhand, Phichaser call him to question on that use of the Tek and the video that followed.  Where he shows a negative net mean voltage AND YET KEEPS IT OUT OF FOCUS?  Or OFF reference?  Why exactly?  And that's not even taking into account that it was probably on hand because it needed repair.  Which makes TK a repair technician.  How honourable is to NOT mention that there's a problem with that machine - if there is?  And how  come - as  repair technician - does he NOT know the meaning of the term calibrate?  I can calibrate my clock to Greenwich Mean Time.  I don't calibrate anything at all - if I set my clock to be in synch with my neighbour's.   

If you start doing your testing in your thread and you make gross errors, you simply cannot gloss over them and not acknowledge them.   Nor can you be dismissive of them.  This will simply not work and it is not good science.

Don't tell me this MileHigh.  Tell TK.  I will show you tests where the protocols are well defined and their significance explained - in FULL.  I see the need of it.  And I trust that our results will be conclusive.  Either way.  Those tests of mine are long over due.  I acknowledge this gladly.

I am anticipating that you will make gross errors and they will have to be corrected.  Otherwise you will be creating another mess, another ambiguous total shambles that will be inconclusive.

I know the standards you require here MileHigh.  They must be equal but OPPOSITE to the standards set by TK.  INDEED - I have every intention of doing my very, very best.

So Rosemary, if you are going to be doing your own testing your best choice of action would be to start acknowledging and correcting your errors right now, before you get into the testing.

Right of now I am correcting your errors of assumption and TK's errors of conclusion and evidence.  Then when I've finished our own demonstration - and you see fit to argue the evidence based on inadequate proof or bad measurements - THEN ONLY will you need to call on me to correct anything at all.  It's hardly deserved before the event.

Kindest regards MileHigh

Rosie Pose

edited wattage to 'negative net mean voltage'

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Oh my God, here we go again.  I can feel it already in my bones.  We have an upcoming fiasco to look forward to.

Your whole attitude in your postings is all wrong.  You are the clueless newbie to electronics that can't string together more than six words about said subject without making a mistake and we are the EXPERTS.  That is a fact, and it's a fact that is obvious to anybody that has been following this saga.  And you should adjust your behaviour accordingly in respect of the reality all around you.

I don't understand you MileHigh.  Phase shifts are the factors that qualify the amount of energy dissipated.  Why don't you know this?  If current flow is 180 degrees out of phase with the voltage across a load resistor then the energy dissipated is ZERO.  It has NOTHING to do with the amount of energy delivered by the power supply.  In TK's published shot - the picture that he showed us on his post - showed a current and voltage at 180 degrees out of true.  Therefore - correctly - there should be NO energy dissipated at the load.  So WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO ADMIT?

I told you twice what your mistake was and either you read it and ignored it or your read it and it flew over your head.  The above is mindless guppy talk and you are acting like a hapless mindless guppy swimming up against the glass in a fishbowl.

And the entire lack of intellectual honesty in that paraded nonsense where he shows the battery depleting?  Quite apart from his vulgarity of association - that 'making out with a dog' bit - is the vulgarity of its inconclusiveness.  Which batteries were recharged?  Which weren't?  Where in God's name can he find a rechargeable lead acid battery or similar battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS' - for God's sake?

For God's sake indeed.  I am pretty sure that you are referring to TK's clip where he looks at the AC battery voltage and moves his probe from one battery to the next.  On one of the batteries he observes 3 volts AC superimposed on the total DC output.  And you interpret that as a "battery that can deplete to '3 VOLTS'" like some hapless mindless guppy that can't even follow a well presented step-by-step demonstration in a video clip.

You can be so frustrating because you are hapless and clueless and arrogant all at the same time.  You are just swimming aimlessly in a fishbowl Rosie Posie and I have very little hope for you.  When you actually do your experiment you will listen to nobody and we all have to cross our fingers and toes that you do it right.  You will also need a hefty dose of blind luck to get through this.

And TK's work has been solid and honest.  He will listen to feedback and work with the people on the thread.  Your characterization of his work is totally wrong, just petty spin-doctoring negativity in a vain attempt to prop yourself up by trying to push him down.  It's not working and you are making a fool of yourself.

Start trying to THINK Rosemary, put your brain in gear.  *SIGH*

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, you are nuts, plain and simple. Don't you see your OWN scope traces there with exactly the same phase relationship (not a "shift") as mine that you don't like?

And the rest of your rant is similarly ridiculous. What battery did I ever "deplete to 3 volts"? You just make stuff up out of your head. None of those batteries have been recharged for days AS I SAID IN THE VIDEOS CLEARLY.

And you are waaay over your head if you can't understand what I am clearly explaining in my videos. As I have said many times before, an intelligent eighth grader who stayed in school and paid attention in math class would be able to follow me easily. But you can't because you don't have the basic knowledge that is a prerequisite.... you are wilfully ignorant and you are even lying to yourself.

Explain how your 180 degree phase differences IN EVERY SHOT YOU SHOW can produce load heating if mine cannot. And while you are at it explain how I am able to show LIVE ON CAMERA that the load does heat with those exact waveforms, if it's so impossible according to you.

Of course you won't because you cannot. Tar Baby does EVERYTHING that your NERD does... and how could it not, it uses the same schematic and components. Do you think that a white pegboard and clipleads are the secret that makes NERD overunity and Tar Baby not? I laugh out loud at your silliness.

Again.... I offer Tar Baby to ANYONE AT ALL that Stefan will agree to,  who will test it side-by-side with NERD using the same methods. And it is ready to go, right now.

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

At least TK is attempting a replication and responding to questions and requests for measurements from a circuit that also demonstrates a negative power measurement.  He is spending both time and money in doing so.  I am interested in gathering as much technical data as possible prior to an attempted replication.  Possibly you too would receive applause if similar discussions could be had with you, and requested measurements made from an operating circuit as discussions evolved. 

Instead of a technical discussion, most of your responses, as in the last, are emotion laden, defensive, and present a negative attitude towards most anyone who dares to ask a question.

If your next experiments are going to be similar to the past wherein you set up a digital 'scope and select or discuss only the data that supports your claims without attempting alternate methods of measurement, or entertaining requests for alternate measurements, I see little change on the horizon.  Also, I respectfully recommend that you find a spokesperson with a bit more technical knowledge.

From what reading I have done on your other thread and in your papers, it appears you did not realize or understand that a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied from your FG, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG.  I believe you statements regarding the circuit continuing to oscillate with the battery "disconnected"  reflects your then lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates (no, there are not thousands upon thousands of ohms of resistance at an FG output).  Hopefully, from the discussions in this thread, you now have a better understanding of at least how the circuit works, how an FG can pass/provide current, and how to read a 'scope's screen.

I originally engaged with you in the hopes of having a technical discussion with you, but from this side of the fence, it is just too difficult to do so.  I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, or being misquoted, as a tool for use in an argument.  As well, when I used the word "review" in the most casual way, you went off on a multi-post tirade.  You constantly refer to and want your papers read, but apparently we are not to "review" them (or ask questions regarding them).

I for one can easily live without all the emotion and negativity.  I don't watch soaps or reality shows either!

If I can get past all the attitude, I will reread your posts, but my first skim through saw no valid arguments against TK's circuit and data.  The sample points issue will change nothing, that is easily proved, the phase shift in the scope shot I requested was only a triggering artifact, which I believed quite possible and is indeed why I questioned it.  I do believe the circuit can likely be further optimized to oscillate at a lower Q2 bias current than TK's, which I may attempt to do with my replication.

But yes, all in all, my hat is off to TK for at least engaging the inquisitive and patiently making measurements if asked.  If you were more forthcoming in a similar fashion, you too might receive similar gratitude.

Partial only to truth,

PW