Testing the TK Tar Baby

[PhiChaser]

Yes, it is a chip that contains an LED on one side and a phototransistor on the other, all sealed up, so from the outside it's just a relay, but the fact that it uses light means there is no electrical connection at all between the input and output side, just the light. No, the idea behind the optocouplers was to isolate the electrical circuits of the FG from the main circuit under test.

Okay, I got that, makes sense.

It works fine for that, but because the oscillations require that negative current source, the optocouplers kill the oscillations.No, the optocouplers were never intended to be "lit up" by the oscillations. The ones I tried, H11 D1, I think, probably don't have the bandwidth response to go to 1.5 - 2 MHz anyway.

Is BEMF a negative current source? Off topic?
I was going to ask about using lower bandwidths but it seems like the oscillations won't allow it? That is to say they don't start until they get up in the MHz range?

I'm not really trying to design anything more than what I've already done. The whole issue involving the FG was about determining if it passes significant current to the circuit and the load. The difficulty lies in the two modes of operation of the circuit. When a positive pulse is provided, the FG functions "normally" and isn't providing any power or current path, just a voltage to the gate of Q1. But when the pulse goes "negative" then the FG must provide a current path and a boosted voltage (negative) for the oscillations to happen. So the mode of operation of the circuit becomes important to deciding the FG's role.

That is the part that I have a tough time with;the circuit affecting the FG. You just want to get those oscillations without the current coming from the FG. Would that be (closer to) OU then?

I believe that the oscillations themselves contribute very little to load heating and battery depletion. All of the "high heat" trials that come with plausible descriptions and interpretable scope shots show substantial current flow during the "ON" or gate HI portions of the period, and there are no oscillations at these times. So, I believe that in order to make the "preferred" mode, that is high heat AND oscillations during some of the signal, a bipolar gate drive pulse must be used. This means that a simple 555 circuit can't do it, because it can't provide the "more negative than negative" bias current that is needed for oscs.

So I "designed" an inverter-timer circuit that would allow operation from the main battery and still make a more negative pole so that the oscillations could occur nevertheless. But now we are told that the positive gate pulse isn't needed. I doubt this, I think it is more misdirection from Ainslie to try to prevent Tar Baby from getting substantial heat in the load, while they refuse actually to test the proposition that THEY can get heat in the load without a positive gate pulse. A major RED HERRING in other words, one of many.


The fact that the Q1 mosfet is not functioning properly in some of those scopeshots is a deduction and is not fallible, though. IF a positive gate pulse is delivered to a functioning mosfet in circuit, that mosfet will turn on and pass current. The mosfet was sent a positive gate signal. The mosfet did not turn on and pass current. Therefore the mosfet is either NOT getting the gate drive signal that is being delivered, OR it is not functioning or properly in circuit, or both. A failed mosfet, a miswired mosfet, a voltage regulator installed instead of a mosfet.... there are many explanations that may be INDUCED from the data, but what can certainly and positively be DEDUCED is that the mosfet isn't functioning properly. And that is a lot more germane to the present discussion than the exact meaning of "exact" when used to describe my temporary substitution of equivalent parts in a different circuit more than three years ago. In other words, a troll is a troll is a troll, QED.

I can see the logical deduction behind looking at the screenshots and the mosfet not passing anything because it was blown. It makes sense. Since those shots are using different settings at different times (connected how using which diagram?) there is only so much you can deduce from them, but it seems like Occam's razor is right again.
So you built a circuit based on available data to try to recreate those scope shots (or at least those robust parasitic oscillations). Not the same, but it does the same thing (only better) right?
Great research! The 'hot oil' calorie testing is really going that 'extra mile' to get reliable numbers, the sort of thing that allows accurate measurements, etc. Certainly better than the testing and measurements done on that 'other' circuit...
I can see that you understand more than RA does about it, anyone can after reading the technical posts and watching your vids. Honestly I would be amazed if RA understood some of those conversations with PW and .99!! (You will notice she stayed out of some of those entirely...)
Whenever a woman starts to call a man 'little' with the intention of insulting his 'stature' (intellect, whatever...), she is 'scraping the barrel'. She can't even argue her circuit anymore, you've already analyzed it three ways from Sunday compared to what she did with it... Sticky sticky...
And now for the poke of the day...

@ Rosemary: Is a Joule still a Watt PER Second and are you EVER going to do the DBT?
@ Wilby: Why don't you start your own research thread? Build your own circuit since you are such an intelligent individual. A troll doesn't start a thread, build things, make videos, etc., a troll spams threads and does NOTHING to advance anything. IF you tricked TK into giving you his address for ulterior purposes, you are a jackass. Shame on you TROLL! Post something relevant to the topic or go post somewhere else...
@ TK: Don't waste your time on that guy, you have better things to do!

Just getting my daily dose,
PC

P.S. For my two cents, that letter is NOT from an attorney, it is a fabrication from RA herself. Her style of 'prose' is pretty distinct (after you read a hundred of her posts anyways...). It also doesn't really SAY anything, which is also her style...

[picowatt]

@All,

I certainly hope Stefan makes an effort to verify the origin of the "lawyer lettter".  Consider PM'ing him to request that he does so.  A simple phone call may suffice. 

In the US, I would guess that posing as an attorney is criminal (not civil) fraud.

It would say a lot to know just what lengths some might go to rather than discuss (not argue) things intelligently.

PW

 

[WilbyInebriated]

@ Wilby: Why don't you start your own research thread? Build your own circuit since you are such an intelligent individual. A troll doesn't start a thread, build things, make videos, etc., a troll spams threads and does NOTHING to advance anything. IF you tricked TK into giving you his address for ulterior purposes, you are a jackass. Shame on you TROLL! Post something relevant to the topic or go post somewhere else...

why don't you? why don't you build your own circuit? if you want to see what a troll does look at tk and milehigh. what i am doing is holding up a mirror to them... furthermore, trolls don't spam... spammers spam, trolls troll. since you have no idea what occurred between tk and i why don't you shut your sodding face, troll. all my posts in this topic DIRECTLY REFUTE POINT BY POINT fallacies by tk or milehigh. if you can find otherwise please present it. tu stultus es!

[WilbyInebriated]

And I still think she wrote that lawyer letter herself. Perhaps she submitted text for lawyers to send along.... perhaps she actually sent it herself. I have never seen another instance of that usage of "refer" outside of Ainslie's own writings, though, and I have found at least 5 such examples within her writings.  My conclusion that she wrote the letter is an example of inductive reasoning, something that I deduce is foreign to certain drunken trolls. Nobody maintains that inductive reasoning is infallible, but the troll in his shallow superficial knowledge of the words and usages of formal logic, pretends and acts as if I think it is and persists in nattering on about his own interpretation of what he would like me to say and mean.

I am perfectly happy at any time to be PROVEN WRONG about any of my contentions and the conclusions I might hold based on inductive reasoning. Show me some examples of that usage of "refer"... without the "to" and with the object-subject relationship inverted.... from other writings than Ainslie's and I'll believe less strongly... maybe... that she wrote it. Show me the letterhead of the legal firm over the text.... and maybe I'll call them up and ask them if they wrote it. But you show me an email claiming to be from a law firm but with a typical idiosyncratic Ainslie phrase in it..... well.....  It must be strange to be Wilby, wondering if the sun will actually come up tomorrow or not, since the fact that it always has before isn't evidence that it will in the future.

nice red herring... so that's a no then... you cannot prove rose sent the 'lawyer letter'. thanks for admitting your conjecture is nothing more than conjecture. gawds, it only took you 3 pages (of logically fallacious replies)

how about you prove yourself right? and you're going to talk to me about logic when you've demonstrated that you don't even know what constitutes ad hominem?  LMFAO you're such a little insane bitch troll. where is your demonstration of me committing ad hominem against you?  oh yeah, you are still avoiding the demonstration because you know you were wrong (as usual). i even filled in 3/4ths of the formula for you.   DO THE MATH.     don't be such a fag troll... oh did i mention that was satirical?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyKBFCd_u4


and let me remind you, the art of kanly is still alive and well troll...

[TinselKoala]

Wilby, you are saying that my arguments are invalid because you think I am a "fag troll" or whatever your latest bogus satirical slander is. Everybody who slept through the same logic classes you did understands that that is an argument against the PERSON, and it is abusive.
Thus it is demonstrated.

What is a troll? Somebody who posts offtopic irrelevant and insulting garbage to provoke a reaction. Most people say don't feed them. I toss them crumbs because it amuses me to see trolls walking on their tongues.

Now, let's see you analyse your mistress's posts for logical errors and false, unsupported claims. Will you? No, you will not. You will  just continue to break wind .... and sniff.