Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - this is another circular argument.  In terms of the applied voltage at the gates of Q1 or Q2.  IF Q1 is negative then Q2 is positive.  IF Q2 is positive then Q1 is negative.  We can prove this.  Effectively if we connect the source leg of Q2 directly to the source or negative rail of the battery supply - which is what picowatt is claiming - then we will most certainly show you a continual positive flow of current from the battery supply during the full 2.8 minutes of that switching cycle.  And it will ALSO be positive during the period when Q1 is biased on.  Therefore we will show you that when the source leg of Q2 is ACTUALLY connected to the source or negative rail of the battery supply it will generate a continuous positive current during both periods of each switching cycle.

That's easy and we've done that test.  But I'll show you all.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Approximately 200ma.  We did the math, TK made the empirical measurement.

Then your math is wrong.  We can get oscillations upwards of 4 amps.  Where does that energy come from?  Capacitance at the MOSFET's? 

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It is indeed doing just that. YOU DO THE MATH, you idiot hypocrite. The FG is adding its power to the system when it is hooked up as shown. How else can you explain the fact that A BATTERY CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FG and the circuit functions identically, until THIS BATTERY RUNS DOWN?

Your problem with that battery operated switch - TinselKoala - is that REFUSE to use a small rechargeable battery.  If you DID you'd see that there's energy going back to that battery.  Don't give me the 'proof' because the battery discharges - thing.  Of COURSE it'll discharge.  It's used PRECISELY to obviate any advantage in returning energy.  That's part of your SPIN cycle.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

Guys - this is another circular argument.  In terms of the applied voltage at the gates of Q1 or Q2.  IF Q1 is negative then Q2 is positive.  IF Q2 is positive then Q1 is negative.  We can prove this.  Effectively if we connect the source leg of Q2 directly to the source or negative rail of the battery supply - which is what picowatt is claiming - then we will most certainly show you a continual positive flow of current from the battery supply during the full 2.8 minutes of that switching cycle.  And it will ALSO be positive during the period when Q1 is biased on.  Therefore we will show you that when the source leg of Q2 is ACTUALLY connected to the source or negative rail of the battery supply it will generate a continuous positive current during both periods of each switching cycle.

That's easy and we've done that test.  But I'll show you all.

Regards,
Rosemary

You have already proved what the voltage at the Q2 gate and Q1 source is.  As the source leg of Q1 and the gate of Q2 are both connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, one need only look at the voltage indicated by the 'scope shots of the CSR voltage. 

The argument is not circular, you are just completely and unbelievably wrong.

You demonstrate an inability to read even your own simple schematic, let alone understand your circuit's operation.

I have a "broken record" I would rather listen to.

(technically speaking, a record with a scratch that causes the needle to track to the previous groove, over and over and over and...)

PW

(and again you put your words in my mouth as a tool for your "argument")


   

[picowatt]

Then your math is wrong.  We can get oscillations upwards of 4 amps.  Where does that energy come from?  Capacitance at the MOSFET's? 

Rosemary

Of course you do, we are discussing the DC bias current that flows thru the FG necessary to bias Q2 into a linear region of operation so it can oscillate.  You are in this post referring to AC current.

If you could ever grasp the DC path and operation, possibly you could understand how and why the circuit oscillates and the AC current flow you are discussing.

But I doubt it,

PW