Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Groundloop]

Rosemary,

Did you forget me? I stated that the reason for the oscillation when the FG is at negative bias
is that the circuit behave as an Colpitts oscillator. You promised to get back on that.

GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

Did you forget me? I stated that the reason for the oscillation when the FG is at negative bias
is that the circuit behave as an Colpitts oscillator. You promised to get back on that.

GL.

No Groundloop.  I most certainly did NOT forget you.  The truth is that I can't argue it yet.  We've had another series of public holidays.  This time 'freedom day' and I couldn't find anyone to explain the Colpitt's number.  I will, I assure you - get back to you.

Kindest regards
Rosie

emphasised the wrong point.

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

Please keep in mind that you are totally free to believe in whatever you want.

If you wish to believe FG's can't pass current, that Q2 is not being biased on, that your positive half of the oscillation can only reach the battery via magic, that is your choice and you are welcome to it.

But also keep in mind that I too am allowed to believe whatever I want.

My belief system says FG's can pass current, Q2 is being biased on, and that the positive half of the waveform is AC coupled to the battery.  I also believe that inductive reactance can act as a very real frequency dependent "resistor" to an AC signal in a fashion similar to a normal resistor regarding DC (with additional properties inherent to inductance).

So yes, I also believe a wire is not always just a wire, and that is not spin, that is again fact.

PW

[Groundloop]

No Groundloop.  I most certainly did NOT forget you.  The truth is that I can't argue it yet.  We've had another series of public holidays.  This time 'freedom day' and I couldn't find anyone to explain the Colpitt's number.  I will, I assure you - get back to you.

Kindest regards
Rosie

emphasised the wrong point.

Rosemary,

Thank you. Looking forward to your answer.

Not much 'freedom day' over here. I have been working my butt off to try to get a micro controller to do my instructions.
But I got the worst fail off all, a random crash when run in real environment, but no crash in the simulator. LOL

Sorry TK, for the off topic comment.

Have a nice weekend. :-)

Regards,
GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

picowatt
I see you want an answer.  Who would have thought?  The more so as you're NOT answering those rather glaring errors related to under 6 year olds with an adult competence in reading writing and arithmetic - and the manual dexterities to handle hot irons and soldering material.  and that there's no 'retraction' related to the INFERENCES about my intelligence quotient being roughly the same as a 6 year old - which is to say that it's also on a par with your average 'parrot'.  LOL.  I want you to remember what I say here picowatt.  And it's certainly NOT a threat.  I will - one day - call you to task - and TK for that matter - on certain slanderous indulgences.  But I'll bide my time.  And I've yet to learn who TK is.  It's not from want of trying.  But I'll get there.  While I'm entirely satisfied that you both are relying on that 'Rosemary is utterly stupid' thing I also KNOW that this technology will finally be VINDICATED - and with it those 'slurs' that the two of you apply with such reckless prodigality.  Meanwhile - you both provide a valued service.  You assume that because I'm a lonely voice on this thread - that I'm also 'alone' with this technology - these claims - this general 'reach' that we're making into new physics.  Therefore you indulge in a series of actionably slanderous comments that variously amuse, engage or shock our readers and our members.  It's that level of shock that serves our purposes.  Very well indeed.  Because it polarises opinion PRECISELY because it engages our readers in 'the quarrel' - and on an emotional level.  If I saw no value to publicity then I would have desisted way back.  But the value is that it 'spreads the word' - more capably than consensus.  It is almost as if the merits of an argument are always best served under rather irresponsible abuses of your anonymity.  And bad publicity is as good as any - for this purpose or indeed any purpose when the object is to advance anything at all.  And especially so as that vindication will then be considerably more public and considerably wider spread.  What could be better.  Thereafter - I'll take the time and trouble to look for those apologies.  Which most certainly WILL ensue.  Or they'll be accountable.

Now.  Regarding this latest post of yours...

Please keep in mind that you are totally free to believe in whatever you want.

If you wish to believe FG's can't pass current, that Q2 is not being biased on, that your positive half of the oscillation can only reach the battery via magic, that is your choice and you are welcome to it.

A function generator DOES NOT pass a current flow to the circuit.  It INITIATES a current flow on inductive components in that circuit.  If it allowed a flow of current from its own SUPPLY SOURCE - then it would defeat the basis of the Laws of Induction. 

But also keep in mind that I too am allowed to believe whatever I want.

My belief system says FG's can pass current, Q2 is being biased on, and that the positive half of the waveform is AC coupled to the battery.  I also believe that inductive reactance acts as a very real frequency dependent "resistor" to an AC signal in a fashion similar to a normal resistor regarding DC.

Then you do INDEED rely on belief.  And belief has no part to play in any science at all.

So yes, I also believe a wire is not always just a wire, and that is not spin, that is again fact.

So YES.  You are not constraining your OPINIONS to scientific FACT.  BUT.  As you say - you are free to do as you please.

Rosie Pose