another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[picowatt]

TK,

Nice video, a little inductance goes a long way...  I at first thought that the ferrite in the probe was damping HF, nice the way you did a with and without...

So, regarding Q1 not turning on as one would expect based on the scope data, I do not know what to say.  If it was connected as in the first paper's schematic, Q1 must be defective for at least Test 1 and Test 6.  It appears to operate correctly for Test 2.

I wonder if the tests are in chronological order, or if Test 2 was performed prior to Q1 sustaining unnoticed damage or inadvertant loss of connection.

PW

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Nice video, a little inductance goes a long way...  I at first thought that the ferrite in the probe was damping HF, nice the way you did a with and without...

So, regarding Q1 not turning on as one would expect based on the scope data, I do not know what to say.  If it was connected as in the first paper's schematic, Q1 must be defective for at least Test 1 and Test 6.  It appears to operate correctly for Test 2.

I wonder if the tests are in chronological order, or if Test 2 was performed prior to Q1 sustaining unnoticed damage or inadvertant loss of connection.

PW

What do you say about Rosie Poser's characterization of that little video? Do you see what she claims to see? She's gone past delusion and is now hallucinating, I think.

The dates and times of Rosemary's scope traces are shown at the lower right corners. Presumably these times correspond to when the traces were obtained and stored in memory.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK,

Nice video, a little inductance goes a long way...  I at first thought that the ferrite in the probe was damping HF, nice the way you did a with and without...

So, regarding Q1 not turning on as one would expect based on the scope data, I do not know what to say.  If it was connected as in the first paper's schematic, Q1 must be defective for at least Test 1 and Test 6.  It appears to operate correctly for Test 2.

I wonder if the tests are in chronological order, or if Test 2 was performed prior to Q1 sustaining unnoticed damage or inadvertant loss of connection.

PW

I have many, many many samples of that waveform as I downloaded it on a regular basis.  It is very easily replicated - except apparently by TK.  And I'm rather surprised at you picowatt that you endorse TK's comments regarding the very obvious repositioning of that probe on an alternate rail or on the junction of two rails.  His ability to 'film' anything at all is somewhat impaired.  Its a shame that he didn't focus on this with the same level of intensity as he managed in his earlier probe reference.  I'm inclined to think that this was required.

And back to that 'discrepancy' as you put it.  I would strongly recommend that you argue this in the face of the evidence when you do, and if you do replicate.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, any scope engineer will tell you that EVERY scope can and will produce artefacts and garbage traces if not used properly. And you are not using your scopes properly.

Mentioning courts again? Feeling your grip on reality slipping away again? That's your usual fall-back tactic when your position becomes untenable.

And just imagine... TWO fancy scopes, both with math and integration capability... and you hook them up exactly in parallel so they show the same information. What a waste of oscilloscopes. You could have shown so very much more, had you only known what you were doing.

[TinselKoala]

It is very easily replicated - except apparently by TK.

Lol. Where did this scope shot come from, I wonder?