Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Every time I think that you can't possibly come up with anything else as stupid as some of the things you've said... you prove me wrong again.

This is unbelievable. We are trying to discuss electronics with someone from the Bizarro Universe who thinks that a FG turns a mosfet on by electromagnetic induction, who thinks that a three-second DC pulse is somehow a "square wave".... that Agilent are totally wrong about their FGs passing or sourcing current.....

Un believe able.

ANYBODY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR CAN PROVE FOR THEMSELVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG in ten minutes. Or less.

Which means - TK - that what's actually UNBELIEVABLE is that you are all overlooking this FACT.  Here's the thing.  That you power a string of LED's - that you turn a motor - that you do anything at all with electric current it ALWAYS obeys those INDUCTIVE LAWS.  And by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect.  It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science.  And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own.  I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit.  The induced current flow that results from its applied signal can only return to the probe and to the terminal of that probe and back to its own source.  Nowhere else.  And then any current that is induced as a result of that flow of current  between the terminal probes will return to ITS source.  And so on.  Ad infinitum. If a current cannot find its source then it will SPARK - it will manifest some discharge to ground or it will not resolve that applied voltage as current flow.

Rosie Posie
And you can contradict this as often as you please.  It will ALWAYS be wrong. 

[TinselKoala]

TK,

So that would be identical to .99's sim schematic with the FG/bias source ground moved to point 4, which would make that sim schematic similar to the first paper schematic.  That way Ibias is accounted for by the CSR trace.

I knew you knew that.

PW

Yes, that's right, but of course that is NOT the way the circuit was wired in the demo video-- which only _refers_ to the claims and circuit(s) contained in the papers. There, the "minus" lead from the FG can be seen to be connected to the common ground point on the battery side of the "shunt". The FG leads are the red alligator clip and the black clip, and the red clip is connected to the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2 (mistakenly labeled "F" on the board) , and the black clip is connected to the common ground bus, not on the transistor side of the shunt.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And TK - you have NOT answered this post. Here it is again.

My dear TinselKoala

You've misquoted me.  Who would have thought?  Did you ALTER my post?  I'll get back there.

Meanwhile - back to business...

And then TK laughed and laughed. A "generator". Not a "power supply source". "Induces" a current according to the "Laws of Induction". Do you mean Faraday's Law of Induction? Or your country's military draft laws? Because neither have anything to do with how the FG functions in your circuit.
I wonder how I was able to use a Function Generator to charge a small battery, light up LEDs, drive a motor..... Oh.. that's right, I have magic bench equipment that does what nobody else's equipment does. After all... who ever heard of an Interstate "high voltage function generator"? That right there gives the whole story away. TK is using HIGH VOLTAGE !!

Therefore aliens.

Delighted to see you're amused.  Yes I mean Faraday's Laws of Induction.  No I do not mean our country's military draft laws.  We have none.  I DID NOT see anything related to you charging a non rechargeable battery.  On the contrary I saw an obsessive need to apply a non rechargeable battery to power your 555 because you needed to prove that it would ONLY discharge.  Golly.  It performed as expected.  That's what non rechargeable batteries do.  You then rather fatuously argued that it loses energy.  Which is also as expected.  What you DID NOT DO was use a battery that could benefit from all that INDUCED oscillation in order to determine the amount of energy that is is ACTUALLY transferred THROUGH INDUCTIVE PRINCIPLES back to the 555's battery supply.  CLEARLY.  Because you USED THE WRONG BATTERY.  And that would have DEFEATED your argument.  Sorry. For 'argument' read 'spin'.

Your LED's lit up because the resistance on the wire was enough to induce a small voltage which then collapsed as that square wave signal changed - which then produced power proportional to the square of the applied voltage on both halves of that square wave applied signal.  You drove your motor on precisely those same principles.  So.  TK.  Let us know how you managed to defeat Faraday's Laws of Induction.

Rosie Pose
edited

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Nor this.

Every time I think that you can't possibly come up with anything else as stupid as some of the things you've said... you prove me wrong again.

This is unbelievable. We are trying to discuss electronics with someone from the Bizarro Universe who thinks that a FG turns a mosfet on by electromagnetic induction, who thinks that a three-second DC pulse is somehow a "square wave".... that Agilent are totally wrong about their FGs passing or sourcing current.....

Un believe able.

ANYBODY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR CAN PROVE FOR THEMSELVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG in ten minutes. Or less.

Which means - TK - that what's actually UNBELIEVABLE is that you are all overlooking this FACT.  Here's the thing.  That you power a string of LED's - that you turn a motor - that you do anything at all with electric current it ALWAYS obeys those INDUCTIVE LAWS.  And by trying to INSIST that the function generator actually passes it's own current supply to a circuit is not only INCORRECT - it is UNBELIEVABLY incorrect.  It shows a want of precision that is entirely inappropriate to the study of science.  And it reflects - not on my competence - but on your own.  I am VERY well aware of what you can 'infer' by 'implying' that the function generator itself is passing its current to the circuit.  The induced current flow that results from its applied signal can only return to the probe and to the terminal of that probe and back to its own source.  Nowhere else.  And then any current that is induced as a result of that flow of current  between the terminal probes will return to ITS source.  And so on.  Ad infinitum. If a current cannot find its source then it will SPARK - it will manifest some discharge to ground or it will not resolve that applied voltage as current flow.

Rosie Posie
And you can contradict this as often as you please.  It will ALWAYS be wrong. 

[picowatt]

Yes, that's right, but of course that is NOT the way the circuit was wired in the demo video-- which only _refers_ to the claims and circuit(s) contained in the papers. There, the "minus" lead from the FG can be seen to be connected to the common ground point on the battery side of the "shunt". The FG leads are the red alligator clip and the black clip, and the red clip is connected to the gate of Q1 and the sources of Q2, and the black clip is connected to the common ground bus, not on the other side of the shunt.

TK,

Yes, you are correct.  Just as .99 said with regard to his sim schematic, it is a representation of the March demo's  schematic as the circuit was actually connected at that time.

I agree that you should stay with the alternate FG/bias supply current return path, and connect to the non-batt end of the CSR, as you are doing, and as is done in the first paper schematic.  That way the current flowing thru the FG/bias supply is also flowing thru the CSR and accounted for via the CSR trace.

PW