Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Forum guidelines require nothing more than respect.  I am not obliged to answer your questions.  Nor will I.  Not until I see the required professionalism and impartiality associated with this science.  And not until I see respect for both me and for our work.  Both are lacking.  Which is a gross understatement of the fact.  And your own 'question' emphases have been based on erroneous assumptions - that having been addressed are then IGNORED.  One would, under normal circumstances acknowledge that error of 'assumption'.  I'm specifically referring to your very first question that dominated my own thread and that was then followed by 5 pages of pure calumny - 41 posts in one night - where you and TK et al - simply assumed that your 'emphasis' was correct.  It was not.

Rosemary

Rosemary,

The only answer given regarding that question was that I (and others) do not know how to read a 'scope.  Even using the somehow corrected readings you countered with (I believe it was +6 or so volts), Q1 should still have been turning on while it was indicated by the CSR that it was not.  So no, I do not feel you addressed that observation, you merely tried to "argue" it away.  I gladly admit when I am wrong, have you ever done so? 

In any event, in reading the post quoted above, I rest my case...

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Respect this:

LOL TK.  That's exactly what I mean.  By the same token I could keep on keeping on about your own rather 'gross' inaccuracies.  Unlike you I have no such compelling need.  They speak for themselves.

At last.   I've had a laugh.  Thank you.
Rosie Posie

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi TK,

On the modified replication of the Quantum COP>17 circuit everyone made a big stink about the carbon .25 ohm resistor I used and there was a discussion on the wire wound resistor type which gave much more inductance into the circuit you could actually see with a scope, especially with large 10 watt wire wound resistors.

That's why I ended up using a "Caddock" (MP-930) 30 watt .25 ohm that was 10nh and then no one complained what was used for measurement purposes with my modified experimental device.

But for a replication .... you use what was specified if available which you are doing or as close as possible, unfortunately even if it was designed improperly for the application intended.

Cheers,
Fuzzy

[TinselKoala]

It doesn't matter.  Not in the least.  What matters is that you did not refer to it's need - to be calculated into that wattage value that you presented with such an inappropriate flourish.  That's where the 'spin' comes in.  And if there's been some 'noise' as you put - since then - it's served its purpose.  You clearly are NOT investigating anything at all.  You're trying to present 'gross' evidence of a subtle principle that entirely eludes you.  Even now.

Rosie Pose

Show us where you ever referred to the "need" in your papers. The only passage is the one I've already quoted, and there is no indication anywhere that you did anything other than what I did.Especially in the shot below, where your "mean power" is very close to my ORIGINAL calculation.... which might not be an "error" at all.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

The only answer given regarding that question was that I (and others) do not know how to read a 'scope.  Even using the somehow corrected readings you countered with (I believe it was +6 or so volts), Q1 should still have been turning on while it was indicated by the CSR that it was not.  So no, I do not feel you addressed that observation, you merely tried to "argue" it away.  I gladly admit when I am wrong, have you ever done so? 

In any event, in reading the post quoted above, I rest my case...

PW

LOL  Again.  INDEED.  I ALWAYS admit when I'm wrong.  Ask MileHigh.  I take great pride in my readiness to do so.  And where have you admitted error?  I explained that you need to factor in values related to that zero crossing line that is appropriate to an AC value further qualified by the signal generator's offset. 

TK is still referring to the 12V peak of that signal.  And you have never acknowledged that the value needs to be adjusted by factors related to the coupling.  There is NOTHING represented in that value that is INCORRECT.  However,  what I have subsequently learned is that I could have independently adjusted that coupling on Channel 3 to an AC value.  I will show you ALL in our demonstrations.  I'm still trying to find the correct forum for that.

Rosie Pose.