Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

I did not truly expect an answer.  You have no explanation.

In case any new readers, or a spillover or two from your new forum, are not fully aware of the issue, I will repeat the question in full.

In the first paper (not the COP=17 paper), in FIG3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, the 'scope capture indicates that approximately +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  Surely all will agree that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause it to turn fully on.

However, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate any significant current flow as would be expected from Q1 being turned fully on.

The only possible explanations for this would be that Q1 is damaged (although a MOSFET failing open circuit is somewhat rare), or Q1 has become disconnected or is improperly connected.  In any event, a functioning Q1 cannot be connected as per the schematic in the first paper and have +12 volts applied to its gate without significant current flow being indicated.

As well, in the FIG7 the gate drive indicates that Q1 should turning on, yet again, the CSR trace indicates it is not.

The only explanations given to date by the author argue that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.  It was verified via a phone call with LeCroy that the 'scope is indeed being read correctly.  The author has also had plenty of opportunity to confirm this with LeCroy as well (which it was stated was to be done when the 'scope was calibrated).

So, to date, no credible explanation has been provided by the author as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7.  It is readily apparent, however, that Q1 should be turning and that the CSR trace indicates that it is not. 

Also note that in FIG5, a 'scope capture made the month prior, the indicated gate drive is less than as indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace indicates significant current flow thru Q1.

Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it is clearly indicated that it should be?

[TinselKoala]

And why exactly, should I bother?  Because you demand to know?  I don't think I owe you anything - least of all an explanation.  I would expect professionalism before I engage with anyone at all.  And you - like our little TK - have NONE.

Rosie Pose

You will have to explain yourself sooner or later, Ainslie. And you really should look at what "open source" means in this context. There is a major, very real anomaly to be explained IF what you say is true, and you owe it to your sycophants to explain it. On the other hand, if the mosfet is blown or disconnected, that's a simple and easy to understand, not anomalous and in fact EXPECTED reason for the scopetraces to look like they do. Anybody.... ANYBODY who knows how to read an oscilloscope and who understands the basics of mosfet action can see for themselves that there is SOMETHING to be explained in those traces.... and if you DON'T do it in public, as soon as you know what it is, then once again, you are withholding necessary information about your "open source" project: that is, you are a liar and a hypocrite. But we already knew THAT much about you.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear little TK,

You were an idiot in 2009 when I worked on your other crazy circuit. That makes you still an idiot today. And yes, Ainslie, I still have students. something you cannot grasp at all, lacking respect for teachers as you do.

I remember your efforts here - well.  You never managed to get that oscillation.  It was laughable. 

Your lying insinuations about why I'm doing something else now aren't even worthy of notice.

Not actually.  They're of riveting interest to everyone reading here.  I'll get back to this point.  Trust me on this.  LOL.

I want to know what you mean in this quote where you say I manage to " INSERT a wire that simply was not there". Are you lying about me again, talking about when I exposed Mylow's fraudulent fishing line driven motor? Just what are you alleging here, the lawyers need to know specific details of your claims. This is not the first time you've made a similar idiotic assertion.

I asserted NOTHING.  I repeated the opinion of those who saw that video.  It's widely contended that you INSERTED a fishing line into the video in order to denigrate Mylow's work.

I am not the issue,

You most certainly ARE the issue. 

Rosie Pose

[TinselKoala]

@PW: The experimental trial that generated the Figure 7 scopeshot is best described in her blog posts 117 and 118, which I have linked to previously. The Fig 7 scopeshot was taken near or at the end of that trial. She has also said various times that that trial had to be stopped because of some kind of thermal runaway behaviour. The trial used a full 60 volt nominal battery pack, indicating 62 volts plus most of the time. Later "high heat" trials, including the one in the video, use 48 volts in the battery pack.
In the scopeshot compendium that I've made, I've preserved the original filenames whenever possible. The "SCRNxxxx" names are auto-assigned by the scope, so the chronological sequence is preserved, mostly.

I've been playing around with a Class-E autoresonating Tesla Coil over the past couple of days, and earlier today I failed a NTE2922 mosfet, eleven dollars each, from overheating it while messing around with coil matching. It failed, drain-source not exactly open but with about 1 megohm between them either polarity, and gate-source conducting at about 300 ohms. Weird. But at least it didn't explode like yesterday's TIP122 Darlington in another circuit... groundloop's H-bridge driven far too HF....   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that it's not possible to get the full high heat performance with only oscillations, and Ainslie has also made statements that indicate that she's aware of this too. Don't make me dig them up right now, please; but they are preserved in the RAPosts.zip files that are in the download section of this forum.

Not actually.  During the 'water to boil' tests we had 'trickle current' at best - coming from the battery.  And WAY more energy returned than ever delivered.

If you are going to refer to my work then at least keep to the facts.  They're clearly evident in our paper.

Rosie Pose