Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Magluvin]

Fakery?   Again, I said nothing of the sort that GMeast is involved with fakery. The only way that this could be true, is if GMeast is Rose. YES, I did call Rose a faker.
What is wrong with people?  I wonder if he will say it again?  Any takers? Unbelievable.

Mags

I win. Pay up.     I could make an easy living predicting this guy.

Mags

[TinselKoala]

@Mags:



(I used two of these in one of my best Bonetti machines; they allow one to see that the machine will also work as a motor, by turning backwards on its residual charge, because these motors don't "cog" at all when they aren't energised. Very interesting designs indeed.)

Yours sound like they might be a bit different though. This one's commutated on the face of the armature, very odd. But it works great for my purposes.

[TinselKoala]

@AlienSigns.....

OUCH!!

[gmeast]

@gmeast,

As an alternate means to confirm your circuit's power consumption, you might consider replacing your batteries with a properly sized capacitor and connecting your DC supply to the capacitor to power the circuit.  A diode in the supply's positive leg would ensure that the supply can only provide power to the circuit and not load down any return power to the cap from your circuit.

If you believe the batteries are necessary, you can use the same set up with the batteries.  With the circuit powered off, set the supply so that it is just slightly below the battery voltage (plus one Vdrop from the series diode) so that no current flow is observed from the supply.  Connect the circuit and let it run until the battery voltage decreases below the DC supply voltage, at which time the supply will provide current to maintain the battery voltage.

With either setup, simply multiplying your power supply DC voltage by its indicated DC current will provide a fairly accurate indication of your circuit's power consumption in watts (within the accuracy of your supply's meters).


Just a suggestion,

PW

Hi picowatt,


Thanks for your suggestion.  I do, as you had noted, believe the batteries are necessary.  For the last two days I have been testing what (I think) you suggested above.  If you look at the last bunch of stuff I posted on Rosie's site, I show some discharge curves ... one for the batteries over a 6-1/2 hour period (light blue 200Ohm load)) and another is the circuit running the RL (purple curve).  The curves have substantially the same slope for much of the run.  This simply means that they are discharging the battery at the same rates, the slope is everything in this analysis.  The KNOWN power of the battery curve is 3.21Watts at the selected voltage data point.  But the circuit is producing 4.21Watts to maintain the equilibrium differential temperature of 34C as evidenced by the differential temperature calibration on RL that IMMEDIATELY followed the circuit test using a precision DC power supply.


As the second test of power consumption, I hooked the DC power supply up to the batteries through protection diodes at B(+) and B(-).  I ran the batteries down to the data point on the curves, 25.34V, and then adjusted the power supply to limit voltage and let the current float to whatever load is being put on the supply.  The battery voltage was maintained at 25.2V to 25.5V and the load on the power supply remained at 3.3Watts for more than 16 hours before the current began to climb (very slowly). This second test fully supported the first test.   I'm using two 12V 7Ah batteries in series for my 24V bank. I chose this size of battery so I could have a measurable discharge rate.  That has proven to be a valuable measure in my testing.  My testing suggests that there is something fundamentally sound about the technology.


Rosie used big batteries.  Her discharge rate was likely undetectable.  All I'm doing is exploring the possibility:  that for a given electrical wattage 'into' an inductive resistive heater, you can get a greater equivalent wattage 'out' in the form of HEAT.  THIS REQUIRES THE BATTERIES TO DISCHARGE! That's what this is all about.  Not your agenda or Rosie's agenda or anyone's agenda ... just pure, simple research.  NONE of my measurements are made with scopes or poynty-principles any longer, just battery voltages and time. I now have the results that suggest that something just might be valid here. 


Just get off of the HATE WAGON.  All kidding aside, there's obviously a collective intelligence here.  'HATE' is a poor, ineffective and wasteful way to channel it.


Thanks picowatt for chiming in.  Regards,


GME

[TinselKoala]

Battery voltages, time, and.... TEMPERATURE. It is your measurements of temperature vs time and your interpretation of them that are now at issue, since you are choosing to ignore other electrical parameters. That's fine as long as you do proper calorimetry, which you are not yet doing.

Determining the actual wattage your load dissipates using time-temperature profiles can be done accurately with a bit more effort than your simple setup, and you've been told how to do it, and you can find essentially the same methods as we suggest, in other sources for amateur scientists and academic research as well.