another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

As I recall, the actual scope shots show a Fo of about 1.3MHz. I get about the same in my simulations.

Thanks... I guess I need more cabling amongst my batteries and suchlike.

Also thanks about the HS... I didn't notice that they had used a bit better heat sink. I wonder why... since Rosemary has said several times that her mosfets don't get hot.

BTW, does that look to you like her probes are attached at a "junction"?

But she said,

OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.

Oh... that's right, the video only "relates" to her claims....


Meanwhile, back in La-La land..... After one of my recent videos where I show the TarBaby configured according to YET ANOTHER "wrong" and disavowed schematic (the one in the second paper) Rosemary had a lot to say, all of which was garbage, but this bit in particular is so easy to refute I just couldn't leave it alone.

Rosemary said,

And colour code your 'FET wires - at LEAST.  Or something.  Or try and show that they're properly connected.

Here is a photo of my 'FET (sic) wires, as they appeared in that video (and still appear this morning). Notice anything interesting.... like the fact that Rosemary ONCE AGAIN is totally wrong about what she thinks she sees in my video and has no hesitation to post blather without checking her facts. But of course she will tell us that it is MY fault that she made this egregious error, because of my shaky cam and low light. And I will laugh and laugh.

Rosemary.... your video playback software DOES have a "pause" button, doesn't it? Perhaps you can get a ten-year-old to point it out to you and teach you how to use it to examine videos carefully.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I had another look at the clip and I realized that at the very beginning of the clip that you can clearly see that the function generator is grounded to the common grounding point for the probe grounds, which is the battery ground.

So now we are looking at another scenario:  When you wrote your two papers Rosemary you realized the mistake with respect to the grounding issue for the function generator.  It would not be correct to show the function generator bypassing the current sensing resistor because the current sensing resistor is supposed to be "pure" and account for all of the battery current.  Therefore you intentionally changed the simplified schematic diagrams in the papers to show the "negative" signal from the function generator connected before the current sensing resistor, even through you knew that this was not really the case.

Is the scenario that I just outlined above true Rosemary?

The simple fact is that you probably thought that it was a minor and benign change that nobody would notice and it would not really make any difference - or so you thought.

But the fact of the matter is that it makes a huge difference.  In the correct configuration as per the actually built device you have an AC-coupled signal going to the current sensing resistor.  There is no DC path at all in negatively offset oscillation mode.

It wasn't a benign change that nobody would notice, it's a complete and total screw up.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@MH: Good for you for finally pointing this out. I've used both ground positions for my TarBaby tests, but I've hidden the results out in a desert somewhere so Rosemary can't find them.

Either that or they are posted on YT, one or the other.

But as we know, the video only RELATES to the claims, the claims themselves and ALL THE CORRECT DATA AND SCHEMATICS are included in the papers. Aren't they?

And of course we know that DSOs are infallible, so what are you talking about with DC pathways and all that? It's all explained perfectly clearly in the papers using diagrams like the one below.

[TinselKoala]

@MH: I wonder if you could do a similar analysis (similar to YOUR earlier one I mean, not hers) using the "high heat" mode with a positive gate pulse of 12 volts from the FG, on a diagram instead of the fine verbal description earlier ......



(You know... it is interesting. Every reference I can find about power measurements on switched mosfet circuits says to use the mosfet drain voltage and source-drain current in the instantaneous power computation. Yet it seems that they have left out the drain voltage completely in the papers (but not in the video, where it reveals much.))

[TinselKoala]

Good morning, Little Miss MOSFET.