Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

The FG turns on the mosfets by applying a charge to the gate. There is very little current flow associated with this and when the gate is "full"of charge the mosfet simply stays on with no additional gate current except for tiny leakage. This has NOTHING to do with Faraday's Law of Induction, which says that a changing current induces a voltage in another conductor that is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field of the first current. All current flow that you will encounter does obey this law and the induced voltages around your circuit are what is making the feedback. This has nothing to do with steady-state DC currents, it only applies when the current and its magnetic field are changing. If a FG is making a pulse that is below 10 Hz into small inductances... it might as well be making DC pulses. And if it is making two-minute long pulses... then it IS making DC.

As usual, your citation of Faraday's Law or some other unspecified "Laws of Induction" betray your ignorance more than any erudition that may have soaked in through your thick skull over the years.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Was the Tek manual link a good one for you?

PW

Yes, it was good for me. Was it good for you, too?


Thanks, I just got it. I've been dealing with another issue that took a few minutes.

[picowatt]

Yes, it was good for me. Was it good for you, too?


Thanks, I just got it. I've been dealing with another issue that took a few minutes.

TK,

Yes, it was good for me to....

Now you have some late night reading material.  All digital and phosphor like.

Hopefully "it" is not gibberish.

PW

[TinselKoala]

Nor this.

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.

Well, I'll just keep contradicting you then, but when I do it I will always provide evidence that I am right and you are wrong. You can only provide... words with no evidence, and words that continue to make stupid claims that a child could refute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpOzcCJMstI

[hoptoad]

My dear hoptoad,

I would urgently caution you against believing everything that TK 'insinuates, infers or implies'.  He's never allowed the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it - to pollute his argument. So.  NO.  Not actually.  I have NEVER assumed that you are TK.  What I have understood is that you're certainly one of his rather uncritical acolytes.  And you'd probably do better if you applied those critical faculties of yours.  But feel free to 'laugh' - with or without reason.  Because that's always a good thing. 

Regards,
Rosie

I took TK's inference that you thought he might be me, or I might be he, as nothing more than a bit of tongue in cheek levity on his behalf.

Rosemary, I have no personal feelings either positive or negative towards you or TK. I disagree with most of your interpretations of TK's presented data and circuit analysis. I do, however, admire your passion and persistence, if not your technical understanding and ability. I also admire TK's methodology, which compels him to "leave no stone unturned" in his search for answers based on empirical evidence.

As for being anyone's acolyte, well, you can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for supper.!!
Cheers