Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

PhiChaser,

Um... Seriously?? I mean, REALLY ROSEMARY?!? A FG produces NO CURRENT??

WHERE have I stated that a function generator does not pass current?  You referenced my own quote which stated this...
>>...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.
Of COURSE the function generator passes a current.  How else could it apply a voltage to any inductive or conductive circuit material in series with that current?  But what it applies, or generates in that inductive and conductive circuit material is an applied voltage.  When the current through those materials is increasing then the energy is transferred from the circuit to magnetic fields that are measured as VOLTAGE.  And when the current decreases and ONLY then - is this energy returned.   And that induced VOLTAGE then generates a current flow in that inductive and conductive circuit material that is in anti phase to the flow of current from the generator.  That's generally speaking.  Specifically in the NERD circuit - we apply that current so that it induces a VOLTAGE signal at the MOSFET gates.  And we apply the probe of the function generator directly to the gates of Q1 and Q2.  That applied VOLTAGE is either in or out of synch with the polarity from the supply batteries.  Which then enables a flow of current ACROSS THE GATES - OR NOT - from that battery supply source.  It does NOT enable a flow of current from the function generator.  EVER. 

That IS what you're saying right? A function generator doesn't put ANY current into a circuit AT ALL?? Can I quote you on that?? (Oh wait, I just did...)

It is NOT what I'm saying.  So.  NO. You may NOT quote me.  Unless you quote it in context. Which is what TK and picowatt and MileHigh - are all trying to do - rather frantically - while they continue to SPIN the tale that I know not whereof I speak.  Since I'm talking basic laws of physics and NOT electronics - I'm more than competent to comment.  And I most assuredly am right.

I have an old FG that is coming in the mail (hopefully early next week) so I will definitely be testing that statement. My collection of analog uA meters (ranging from 0-15uA to 2mA) will show me the (un)truth of your statement in a moment... How to explain those moving needles? More magic??

Which comments show me how effective is all that SPIN.  I am not the one dealing with magic.  I'm dealing with FACTS.  They're the one's who imply 'magic' in order to advance the 'spin'.  And that spin is intended to get those less versatile members here believe precisely what they've managed to get YOU to believe.  And this point related to current flow is not a NICETY.  TK et al are depending on this to carry their argument that the current flows through the Gate of Q2 to the source - during the 'off period' of each switching cycle.  The only ones who are seriously engaged in this study are Groundloop and Poynty.  At least they're the only ones with intellectual honesty. Nor do either of them agree with me.  But follow their arguments if you want an appropriate argument.  The other three major contributors have a mission here.  I'm sorry you're not aware of it. 

(Sorry about all the changes.  I've been trying to get this into readable posts.  Clearly I'm obsessive) 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You should be thanking TK (and the rest of the gang, you know who) for STILL trying to educate you on your own 'invention'... Wow...
I've only known about the RA circuit for less than a year and I'm already tired of her endless deflections and denials... Amazing patience you guys. Excellent work TK!! I can keep up with most of what you are doing and I'm no electronics expert.

I am preparing a detailed transcript and report of every single video that TK has made.  I will post that report with appropriate comments and with links to those videos - when I'm ready.  THEN feel free to comment on my 'deflections and denials'.  But I would strongly recommend that you defer your opinion until then. Meanwhile just remember this - if you indeed want to pretend to any balance at all - is that TK first debunked our COP>17 test.  That debunk FAILED - and TK was obliged to withdraw because we had a public replication of that test.  The replicators then DENIED their own results and those same deniers are right here ON THIS THREAD - assisting TK in his argument.  I assure you that not only will we demonstrate the effectiveness of our early claim about this circuit of ours - that COP>17 being a 'variant' - but we will exceed that x17 by a significant factor.  And that test and our NERD circuit test will be done under a battery draw down comparison test.  So.  Spare me this your opinion - unless you want to parade the extent to which you've been thoroughly DUPED.
And as for this...

Sorry to crap up your excellent research thread, I'm just irritated that RA continues to disparage your work when clearly (to me anyways) you have been trying to leave no stone unturned. Must be low on caffeine..

Irritation is an inappropriate response.  Better that you apply your critical facilities if you still have any.  I am most certainly disparaging their work. It's not even pretending to impartiality.  I know what motivates it.  And if you took the trouble to work out their spin you'd see why.  I'm entitled to defend my work.  I see that I've not convinced you.  And I've not convinced hoptoad.  Probably I haven't convinced the majority of you.  YET.  But my turn will come when we do our demonstrations.  And I assure you that our demonstrations will be CONCLUSIVE.  I KNOW how the COP>17 test will pan.  I'm not sure how the NERD circuit will perform but have a shrewd idea.  And our tests will be publicly run for the DURATION.

Rosemary

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

<<< I have to edit this posting because I got confused with respect to Rosemary's two postings.  I thought that there was only one posting.  >>>

WHERE have I stated that a function generator does not pass current?  You referenced my own quote which stated this...
>>...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.
Of COURSE the function generator passes a current.  How else could it apply a voltage to any inductive or conductive circuit material in series with that current?  But what it applies, or generates in that inductive and conductive circuit material is an applied voltage.  When the current through those materials is increasing then the energy is transferred from the circuit to magnetic fields that are measured as VOLTAGE.  And when the current decreases and ONLY then - is this energy returned.   And that induced VOLTAGE then generates a current flow in that inductive and conductive circuit material that is in anti phase to the flow of current from the generator.  That's generally speaking.  Specifically in the NERD circuit - we apply that current so that it induces a VOLTAGE signal at the MOSFET gates.  And we apply the probe of the function generator directly to the gates of Q1 and Q2.  That applied VOLTAGE is either in or out of synch with the polarity from the supply batteries.  Which then enables a flow of current ACROSS THE GATES - OR NOT - from that battery supply source.  It does NOT enable a flow of current from the function generator.  EVER. 

Your paragraph about current flowing through the function generator was the usual nonsensical word salad.  Did you do some homework?  I would think not.

Draw a circuit diagram that shows EXACTLY how the current flows through the circuit.

And that spin is intended to get those less versatile members here believe precisely what they've managed to get YOU to believe.

Then there were the 'conspiracy' allegations yet again.  Exxon is very worried about a little old lady in South Africa that can't string six words together about electronics that make sense... not.

Which then enables a flow of current ACROSS THE GATES

TK et al are depending on this to carry their argument that the current flows through the Gate of Q2 to the source

You also made two separate references to current flowing through the gates of the MOSFETs.  Only in the Bizarro Universe Rosemary.  That's where the source and drain pins block current and current flows through the gate.

TK never said that current flows through the GATE.

STOP THIS NONSENSICAL IDIOT TALK ABOUT CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE GATES.

What you and the readers are witnessing is convergence.  As more and more data comes in, it's all pointing to a conventional under unity setup where the batteries discharge their energy to heat up some MOSFETs and a load resistor all the while being helped in this task by the function generator.  With the current flowing straight through the function generator itself.

When you do your battery draw-down tests and the shock of reality hits you I think you should just walk away from the whole thing.

MileHigh

[picowatt]

Just one question for true oscilloscope experts here:

One thing I was never certain about comes into play for my previous post.  The question is do you need to use the ground leads on the probes themselves or can you just make a robust connection between the common scope ground terminal (which may be on the face of the scope) and the negative battery terminal?  That way you can remove the scope channel ground leads.

This may tie into the scope probe compensation.  At the frequencies in question at least you are still not really in transmission line territory for the shielded probe cables.

Honestly it's just one of those things that I have never been sure of, I must have used scope probes with the ground leads and with a common ground connection and no ground leads.

Perhaps the experts would comment.   If you can get away with using just the common ground connection it certainly would make it easier to probe the circuit to your heart's delight.   With enough probing it should be possible to visualize what the circuit is doing in your head.

If my skills were really honed and I had real experience in analog RF and I refreshed myself on how amplified negative-feedback oscillators work, I would be tempted to figure out the true mechanism for the current reversal though the CVR and draw up a timing diagram for the whole shebang.  I still believe that PW got it right when he mentioned that AC was being capacitively coupled through the Q2 array gates and that is one of the main agents responasble for the current reversal through the CVR.  The heart of the oscillator is in the Q2 array, and there may be a wire inductance and a MOSFET capacitance coupled with the amplification that turns the Q2 array into an oscillator that is broadcasting AC throughout the circuit.

MileHigh

MH,

Typically for high frequencies (>15MHz) it's better to gnd the probe ends.  For lower frequency work, I can often get away with a gnd wire I have made from silver plated RF braid run between scope gnd and device under test gnd.  There are lots of times the gnd loop formed with multiple probes being grounded at the ends can be a problem, and I only attach one.  There are also times when I cap couple the gnd clip lead of the scope probes to reduce LF gnd loops.  Cap coupling the probe gnds allows the probe leads to be grounded at both ends at RF, but only at one end with regard to LF.

When I am using my braid as a gnd, I try to make the probe leads follow the same path as the braid as much as is practical, often attaching thm together for as long as possible.  Some times I will use both the braid and the probe gnds, with probe gnds and braid connected to the DUT at the same location.  Most times I would rather extend a probe gnd if needed rather than attach to a different gnd point on the DUT.  Single point gnd is always best to maintain.  All grounds should "flow" to one point.

My measurement bench can see down to about -135dBv or better with long average FFT's.  To acheive this noise floor, my system gnd is three braided copper lightning cables running between a copper gnd rod/buss bar on the bench to a triangular array of three gnd rods in a flower bed immediately outside the wall by that bench.  I can't salt the rods (preferred for increased gnd conductivity), as that would kill flowers, which would, well, "create a problem".  But the rods (and the flowers) do get watered regularly. (I was doing fine with a lesser system until a cell tower went up about 1/4 mile away and I had to improve it for RF)  At the bench, equipment grounds go to the copper buss bar.  I have mostly BNC cables with the braid connected to the BNC shell at both ends, but do have some with the braid conected only at one end for when I need to break a loop.  Most times I will pick one piece of test equipment on the bench that is connected to the main bench gnd and make all grounds flow to that one piece of test equipment.  All AC gnd pins are lifted with adapters as well.  I have an AC gnd wire (133 strand #6) runing about 20' between the AC panel gnd and the center of the triad of ground rods (splits off to each rod along with the lightning cable).   Sometimes I will let one piece of equip on the bench have an AC ground conected, most of the times not.  This is of course not code, as many times a test lead or BNC is all there is for a chassis safety gnd, oh well.

I do a lot of THD measuement.  I typically can acheive -104dB THD out to about 140Kc, -100dB to 250Kc, and stay below -90 to -92dB out to about 500Kc.  This is not all that easy and current loops from multiple ground points or paths will show up as harmonics. (and this is typically with 40dB of gain in the DUT).  Many times my signal sources are treated as floated devices, and are the only piece of equip that has its own gnd path to the DUT.  Sometimes this is not always practical, and a loop must intentionally be formed. 

The short of it is, use what works best for what you're doing.  You may have to experiment a bit to get your best measurements and flattest frequency response (least amount of ringing) for the particular measurement you are making.  Even at DC with a 6 digit meter, ground currents can neasily throw off precision measurements.  But always try to use a single point for the gnd connection at the DUT, and attempt to make gnds on all connected equipment  flow to one point.

Apologies for being long winded, grounding is an art unto itself!

PW

   

[TinselKoala]

Hey TK,

As always your doing a nice job 

I'm curious what would happen if you leave your oscilloscope(s) grounded from the 120 volt utility power connection and isolate the 120 volt utility power utility ground connection from your function generator by using a old style receptacle ground adapter.  I'm not sure of a huge testing equipment safety issue with any large peak to peak voltages to harm anything which all seem low.

This might eliminate your testing equipment ground loops if any exist. I do remember somewhere in all the hundreds of NERD RAT postings that Rosemary did , she had removed the plug ground tab on some piece of 240 volt European testing equipment ... I'm still looking.

FTC

Thanks....

The issue of ground loops is an important one and we've discussed it before.  On my equipment, the grounding schemes are as follows:

HP180a scope:  probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Tektronix RM503 scope: probe lead grounds and chassis ground and line cord ground are all connected.
Interstate F43 HV FG:  output "negative" or BNC shields are all connected to chassis ground and line cord ground.
WaveTek Model III FG:  output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground -- UNLESS it's connected to some other bit of kit in which case it's grounded through the negative or BNC shield.
Elenco XP-581 regulated PS: output is floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.
Philips PM6676 counter: input BNC shields/signal grounds are connected to chassis and line cord ground.
Simpson Model 464 DMM: inputs floating, not connected to chassis or line cord ground.

And the Tek DSO that I sometimes use is grounded, all probe grounds are connected together and to the line cord ground.

(But if anyone has a Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, its probe grounds are isolated from each other and from the instrument chassis ground and the line cord power adapter (which doesn't even have a third pin). A very handy feature if it's understood and not misused. Unfortunately... the ones I use are at another location right now.)

For the past week or more we have NOT been using the FGs at all. We have been using either a 9v battery supply for bias (floating) or the Elenco PS (floating) or the circuit's main battery lowest unit ( grounded to the main circuit of course.)
The scope is grounded back to the power line ground but nothing else connected to the circuit is grounded. The only GLpossible in the "current" setup is between the scope probe ground leads.

Most of the time when I use the FG, I'm running a direct connection using BNC from the FG to either the scope's external trigger input or to a channel input or both... this means that the FG and scope are mutually grounded no matter what I do to ground plugs.... and the same will likely be true for the NERD equipment, but I am not completely certain about that.

I want to emphasise here that the negative average mean power measurements that I've been making do not use anything other than the one scope hooked to the circuit, no other equipment grounded or otherwise is used during these measurements. The bias source has been either the regulated PS (floating), the external 9v battery, or the circuit's own main battery, for all my power determinations. Unlike in the NERD demonstration.

So.... the bottom line is that even by cutting off a pin from the grounding adapter, as long as an oscilloscope with grounded probe grounds is connected to the same point as the function generator "negative" or BNC shield, the FG will still be common-grounded back to the line, through the scope grounds. The only way to isolate the scope and the FG completely is to use differential voltage probes and/or non-contact current probes. Or by floating both instruments by ungrounding them both, but they still will be connected through their shields.
I think.

WHAT is the "IsoTech GFG 324" function generator claimed to be used in the papers?  What is its grounding scheme?