Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

@PW: You asked,

Do your waveforms at the source of Q2 resemble those in FIG4 or FIG 5 of the first paper?

What you call source of Q2 I call FG+ input, right? I generally do monitor there except when looking at the CVR. With two channels I look at either battery or common drains with one, and CVR or FG+ (Q2 sources) with the other. I also refer to this as the "positive gate drive input" and this is where the negative bias voltage must be applied. The point marked with a big "plus" sign in the diagram below, right?

EDIT: gahh, I've not had enough coffee, and I'm still set up for DC drive. Let me set up and see.
Whatever I posted here a minute ago is probably nonsense.

[TinselKoala]

OK....sorry about the confusion earlier. I misread the timebase on Fig 4 for a minute.

The answer is "yes, pretty much". The similarity at slower timebase settings during pulsating drive with negative gate pulses I've shown lots of times including above.

Here's a shot showing the similarity to Fig4:

Timebase 1 microsecond per division showing the higher frequency of just under 2 MHz.

A channel (lower) is the voltage across the CVR at 2 volts per division, B channel (upper) is the voltage at Q2 source or FG+ as I prefer to call it at 5 v/div (I couldn't get a stable trigger at 10 V/div. Zero references are the closest graticule line to the grey marks on the right side of the bezel.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

picowatt -

Regarding the flow of current through the function generator - here's what you ACTUALLY wrote.

From what reading I have done on your other thread and in your papers, it appears you did not realize or understand that a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied from your FG, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG.

I take it that you're arguing that the positive bias from the function generator (FG) that's applied to the gate of Q2 enables a flow of current from the battery supply source?  This current flow then passes through the FG probe.  Then it passes out of the ground terminal of that probe to the source rail of the battery supply. Or to put it as Poynty Point prefers - to the battery's negative terminal?  Therefore does the battery REMAIN connected.  And therefore is there no significance in that oscillation.  Is that your argument? Because then, the short answer is 'NO'.  It is not possible.  So WHY should I need to 'understand it'?

Then you continue - in that same post...

I believe your statements regarding the circuit continuing to oscillate with the battery "disconnected"  reflects your then lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates

IF the gate at Q2 allowed any current from the battery supply to pass through the FG probes and to its ground terminal then it would also need to be passing a current from the battery that would reflect above zero.  In effect - either Q1 or Q2 would be continually ON.  Therefore the current sensing resistor (CSR) (NOT CVR as TK keeps putting it)) would NEVER record a voltage less than zero.  At best it would would show a small fluctuation at the point at which the signal changes to apply a positive bias first at Q1 and then at Q2.  Which then may result in that voltage trending to zero.  But it would never CROSS zero.  EVER.  Whereas, in point of FACT what we see is that when the signal transfers - then the voltage across the CSR ACTUALLY swings to a NEGATIVE voltage.  Unless, of course, you're arguing that the battery is now discharging a current from the DRAIN rail as an applied negative voltage.  Perhaps?  In which case we do, indeed, have extraordinary batteries.  And we would also need to have rather EXTRAORDINARY transistors.  Because then they would also need the rather improbable property of enabling an entirely IMPOSSIBLE negative current from the battery Drain rail.  And all this notwithstanding the applied positive signal at the gate of Q2. So. Here's my answer. NO.  It is not MY 'lack of understanding regarding this circuit's operation and how a function generator operates'.  And if it's not mine is it perhaps your own lack of understanding?  I'm sure you won't consider the suggestion insulting, as you were well disposed to apply it to me.

So again.  When you presume to write this...

Hopefully, from the discussions in this thread, you now have a better understanding of at least how the circuit works, how an FG can pass/provide current,

rather - I put it to you that one 'hopes' that it is YOU who would have had a better understanding.  The more so as you are 'posing' - if not as an expert - as a competent engineer in the analysis of current flow.  Certainly you went to some pains to advise us all that a person of your standing could simply 'read' all that he needed to 'read' from an oscilloscope trace.  Why then are you NOT seeing this?  Why do you NOT know how the voltage across the CSR would resolve IF, indeed, the battery was discharging current through the Gate of Q2?  Bear in mind picowatt.  I'm the amateur.  Yet even I know this.  And I can't comment about our readers.  But I certainly know that not you, nor TK, nor MileHigh, nor Farmhand, nor PhiChaser has mentioned this.  WHY?  Are you relying on our readers' ignorance?  Are you assuming an entire lack of intelligence in everyone who engages here - directly or indirectly?  Or are you even aware of the ACTUAL 'thing' that we're pointing to?  WHAT?  Because whichever way one reads these statements - in the final analysis if you ARE aware of these points, then it is nothing short of insulting.  Or had you simply overlooked this?  It can only be one or the other.  So. Do let us know.

./...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

Then.  To continue.  And if it's not enough to insinuate that I have no idea how to resolve the question of the current path from a battery through a simple MOSFET TRANSISTOR - which in itself is excessively simple - you then continue by stating....

and how to read a 'scope's screen.

In other words you are publicly stating that not only do I not understand the 'flow' of current - nor the paths to 'enable' that current - but you also add insult to injury or rather, 'insult to slander' by implying that 'nor do I even understand the significance of a voltage reading across a battery and a current sensing resistor'.  Which is INDEED insulting.  In the extreme.  It is well within the competence of anyone at all.  And I would need to be considerably less than functionally intelligent if I could not, at least, know this much.   

Now you come back with this.

Another perfect example of twisting words or putting words in my mouth, is when I stated a few posts back that "a negative voltage on the source of Q2, as applied by the function generator, allows current to flow thru Q2 and the FG."

Where did you state this?  I was responding to your statement as detailed above.  That was when I wrote ... "You state as fact that the current is flowing through Q2 and the functon generator resulting in a negative voltage..."  And I stand by that statement.  Unless I've ENTIRELY misunderstood your writing.  Unless you are actually acknowledging that there are some questions needing answers as to why the Q2 Gate is able to 'INVERT' - turn upside down - on it's ear - the current from a battery supply to make it negative as opposed to positive. 

To me, the two statements are far from the same.  I did not state "resulting in a negative voltage".  The two statements, my original and the one you claim I stated, are materially very different. Possibly you  believe the two statements are similar and see no difference, but from a technical point of view, I assure you, they are not at all similar.

picowatt - spare me the 'I know better than you' attitude.  There is absolutely NO reason to suppose that if the Q2 Gate has a positive signal that can allow the flow of current from the battery that it can then invert that signal and take it below zero.  Not capacitance, not stray inductance - not ANYTHING - can explain this. 

You do and have twisted my words.  When discussing FIG3, one of your responses was with regard to me being wrong about 12volts being indicated at the shunt.  I never said there was 12volts indicated at the shunt, yet you try to make a point using that as a response, as if such a statement were actually made by me.

I am not at all certain that you referred to 12 volts.  Quite possibly you referred to 6 volts.  In which case I have exaggerated the complaint.  And I apologise.  However, what I'm actually claiming is that the 'offset' from the FG is such that it qualifies the voltage even further.  And this I hope to learn next Thursday.  Then, as mentioned I will tell Poynty Point.  And he will, no doubt, make the knowledge public. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/,,,

As well, you continue to attempt to justify your tirade over my use of the word "review", which appears to me as only a game being played over semantics.  I have no interest in playing that game.  If you reread my post where I used the word review, I said 'by anyone attempting a replication or a review', not anywhere stating that I was doing a review, other than as required for a replication.  It was my understanding, however, that you have attempted or were going to attempt to publish your papers, during which someone would surely have done a "review" of some kind.  I do not believe your tirade towards me over a simple word was justified.

TIRADE?  Is defense now be termed 'tirade'?  I was arguing that IF you were presuming to do a review then you would be 'asking' questions related to the condition of the MOSFET.  You would not have been STATING that it has blown.  And through the next God knows how many pages, and certainly not less than 41 posts that same night - your 'retinue' of supporters declared it a FACT and proceeded to indulge in a level of 'slander' that would have been outlawed on any respectable forum - unfettered as they were and are by aby reasonable application of moderation.  By contrast my protest was FAR from a TIRADE.  It was merely articulate.

I have over the past few weeks looked at other sites and threads going back to your COP17 circuit gleaning data for a replication.  It seems the battle between you and many others has some very lengthy roots.  I fully disagree with the need for anyone to use the abusive language that so many of those threads (and even this one) seem to erode and collapse into.  I do not fully understand why tempers are apparently lost or why such abuse is allowed by moderators or site hosts, however, I am not here to moderate attitudes or get involved in long standing battles between anyone.  If such abuse is ever directed towards me, I will excercise my right to just walk away. 

I wish I had that option.  I cannot indulge any sense of personal injury - because the cause is too important.  And if I were to 'walk away' then all would be lost.  And that most certainly would NOT be in the interests of over unity nor science nor the good of our planet.  My pride, unfortunately - must be the victim.  But that's a small price to pay. 

Although I enjoy a good discussion, I have no desire to become involved in emotional arguments with or between anyone, and this post of mine is exactly the type of post I have no further interest in creating,.  It involves a discussion very far from anything of a technical nature or interest.

If your interest is purely in science and in technical discussions then may I impose on you to refrain from those multiple implications of incompetence which are insulting, inappropriate, and - on the whole - utterly inaccurate.  I am well aware of my weaknesses.  I am also well aware of my strengths.  And the understanding relating to the flow of current is certainly NOT one of my weaknesses.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary