Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Unless you are "Nigel" from Spinal Tap, then you'd be goin' to eleven. 

Turn it all the way up and then one more!!

[TinselKoala]

Possible "extreme settings" operating procedure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsX5PtVTfxg

Ahhhhahaha... I am laughing so hard, that's great. Always wear your safety glasses when using power chords !

Still... his knobs only go up to 100.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys,

It's extraordinary that our so called 'EXPERTS' keep asking this question.  I would have thought it was self evident.

MH,

Well said...

How would you interpret/define the claim of "COP=infinity"?

She seems to have backed away from the "batteries never run down" claim, but continues to state that tests will likely show that their capacity is exceeded.  But if the batteries discharge at all, how can a claim of COP=infinity be made?  What if the batteries die before I am finished extracting an "infinite" amount of energy?  What would the COP be then?

PW

Here's what I mean.  Our COP>17 circuit proved that more energy was dissipated at the load than was delivered by the battery.   But we still measured energy being delivered by the battery.  In our new tests we can measure no energy AT ALL being delivered by the battery.  But we have measurable energy being dissipated at the load.  That takes it to COP INFINITY.

Strange why this needs any explanation.  It's clearly referenced in our paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[evolvingape]

Hi Guys,

It's extraordinary that our so called 'EXPERTS' keep asking this question.  I would have thought it was self evident.

Here's what I mean.  Our COP>17 circuit proved that more energy was dissipated at the load than was delivered by the battery.   But we still measured energy being delivered by the battery.  In our new tests we can measure no energy AT ALL being delivered by the battery.  But we have measurable energy being dissipated at the load.  That takes it to COP INFINITY.

Strange why this needs any explanation.  It's clearly referenced in our paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9_rb6OCiLc

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You most definitely have shown no proof of "COP=infinity", you have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", which, during the measurement thereof, did not account for lead inductance in the connect and interconnect leads to the battery.  Your continued bastardization of the term "COP" is improper, incorrect, and very misleading.  Shame on you.

Golly.  What a pompous, fatuous, idiotic pretentious, opinionated, self-serving halfwit  you are picowatt - with respect... (LOL - maybe not so much.) It's your own rather limited training that's at question.  Not our claim.  Perhaps my previous post will help you out here.  Golly.  Let me borrow a much preferred phrase of yours ...'Shame on you'    This new complaint of yours is nearly as idiotic as your pretense that a negative voltage at the Gate of Q2 will turn it on.  Extraordinary.  Surely you know that this claim of yours will fold at our first demonstration?  It's not even hard to disprove. 

"Infinity" is a very, very large number.  I suggest you stick to claiming you have managed to make the LeCroy display a "negative mean power measurement".  Again, you may have acheived a "negative mean power measurement", but you provide nothing to back up a claim of "COP=infinity".

So you keep saying.  But that's because you're more liberal with your opinions than they merit.  And I, in turn, would suggest that YOU stop embarrassing yourself.  IF you're going to object then get a valid basis to object.  You keep forgetting.  We're not the idiots that you keep presuming.

Just as you refuse to learn how your Q2 operates and how the 'scope is displaying +12 volts to Q1 in FIG3, you refuse to learn what is provided in .99's analysis of the "negative mean power measurement" that you, as well as TK, have managed to measure.

Actually picowatt - I think you're the one who needs teaching.  Hold your horses.  I'll get around it soon - when we do our demonstrations. 

Also, that letter you wrote to your "lab" is precious.  So full of non-sensical, non-technical, useless information.  Do you really believe stating that the FG should be at its "extreme settings" means anything at all?  How about stating period, duty cycle, offset, peak to peak swing, Q2 bias current, real numbers and settings that a lab could actually reproduce?  Anyone at a "reputable" lab receiving that letter would only chuckle and grin.

Not actually.  They know EXACTLY what I mean.  They've read the papers and they know perfectly well how a function generator works and I've MARKED the points that I refer to as extreme - on the generator itself. 

The errors regarding Q1 not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7, and your total inability to either learn or accept how Q2 is biased on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the Q2 source are inexcusable.

They are functioning properly.  Again.  I will SHOW you this.  And again.  If you had any modicum of wisdom you would defer comments such as this.  Because these are EASILY disproved.  What will you do then?  Apologise?  Or just fade into the obscurity you came from?   

I stand by my assertion in your locked thread, you are indeed "not very receptive to learning".  In fact, you would need to learn more about 'scopes, FG's and MOSFET's just to realize how unreceptive to learning you truly are.

And I stand by my assertion that you are entirely disqualified from comment.  Dear God.  You don't even understand the implications of COP INFINITY as opposed to over unity - let alone that that both Q1 and Q2 need a positive signal to turn on.  Golly

Rosie Pose

added