Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

picowatt

If you think I protest too much now - then you're in for a treat.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

picowatt

If you think I protest too much now - then you're in for a treat.

Rosie Pose

And yet another threat.

(Modified from the interrogative.)

Added,

And please do quote where I said you could not solder, so far you have been unable to do so.

Take the time to actually read...

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

All this time..... and we were supposed to be using this diagram, since it's the only one that seems to have come from Ainslie herself.
Preserved here for posterity:

Guys, regarding TK's videos and my promised 'dissertation'.  I spent the most of the day on this - and then got utterly dejected.  The fact is that my arguments will be ignored - TK will continue with his spin and it will all become tediously repetitive and infinitely circular.  My comfort is that there are those posters on this an other threads who are FINALLY getting to ask the right questions.  I know this because two of them have been in touch with me.  I'm literally wasting my time and breath with TK - picowatt - MileHigh and FTC - as he signs himself. 

I would urgently caution all of you.  The most of TK's videos are pure spin and barely scientific.  Even when he tries to prove a point he doesn't.  He rather confirms our own evidence.  Especially with regard to that final Tek run he managed.  He certainly endorses our argument there.  But nota bene - he also went to some lengths to leave out the evidence related to heat measurements and comparative battery performance.  He cannot simply and ever give the full picture.  Always and only can he 'suggest' and 'infer' and 'imply'.  And then his malice is underscored by that heavy handed effort at sarcasm.  Moderation of judgement is NOT his strong point.  But I grant you the amusement value of them all.  Especially that repetitive apology for bad lighting.  If 'brevity is the soul of wit' then repetition is its 'lifeblood'.  And if clear schematics are a requirement for any demonstration - then that 'rats nest' of wires belies any pretense at clarity.  And that MOSFET number that he did - under the preposterous title of CHAPTER 2 - lol - that's got to go down in history as the most presumptuous 'title' that anyone has ever managed.  It's hilarious.  I'm looking forward to a Chapter 3 and upwards.

Anyway.  I think I've said my say.  There is not a one of them who is giving you the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it.  It's all spin. And it's getting progressively more heavy handed - and thereby less effectual.  I am doing myself considerably more harm in posting here than if I was to withdraw.  It's like a 'drug'.  I see yet another example of that 'spin' and I'm compelled to challenge it.  I think I need to rely on you readers here to filter out the truth for yourselves and let this well alone.  I'll try again to ignore these posts.  And  I did not post that slew of comments on his videos.  And nor will I.  It does me no good and doubt it will do TK any harm.  Just more 'fuel to the fire'.  So.  What's the point?  Better I spend my time more constructively.  At least our Easter and public holidays are mostly over.  And from next week most people will be back at work and I'll be able to move on preparing for those demos. 

Needless to say - our LeCroy is STILL not back from the calibration labs.  But I believe I'll be able to take possession of it tomorrow.  And I'm now armed with two cameras one of which is a HD number.  And I also have two tripods.  You need to invest in a tripod TK.  Especially as your compulsion to video everything is so evidently 'over whelming'.  It would greatly assist your argument.  But it would also give you no excuse for all that required poor focus. 

This schematic - which TK kindly 'preserved for posterity' - I'm posting it again.  Please do reference this specifically as those legs are 'joined'.  You'll see the absurdity of TK's and picowatt's proposal that current is flowing from the battery supply source through the function generator terminal and probe -  to the the source via the gate at Q2.   It's an adventurous argument.  But UTTERLY impossible.  The Gate voltage can only enable or not - the battery supply source current flow from the drain leg to the source leg.  The voltage at the gate is only and ever an applied voltage signal.  And it is never 'half on half off' as is implied in that Chapter 2 number. That's not possible. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[picowatt]

Guys, regarding TK's videos and my promised 'dissertation'.  I spent the most of the day on this - and then got utterly dejected.  The fact is that my arguments will be ignored - TK will continue with his spin and it will all become tediously repetitive and infinitely circular.  My comfort is that there are those posters on this an other threads who are FINALLY getting to ask the right questions.  I know this because two of them have been in touch with me.  I'm literally wasting my time and breath with TK - picowatt - MileHigh and FTC - as he signs himself. 

I would urgently caution all of you.  The most of TK's videos are pure spin and barely scientific.  Even when he tries to prove a point he doesn't.  He rather confirms our own evidence.  Especially with regard to that final Tek run he managed.  He certainly endorses our argument there.  But nota bene - he also went to some lengths to leave out the evidence related to heat measurements and comparative battery performance.  He cannot simply and ever give the full picture.  Always and only can he 'suggest' and 'infer' and 'imply'.  And then his malice is underscored by that heavy handed effort at sarcasm.  Moderation of judgement is NOT his strong point.  But I grant you the amusement value of them all.  Especially that repetitive apology for bad lighting.  If 'brevity is the soul of wit' then repetition is its 'lifeblood'.  And if clear schematics are a requirement for any demonstration - then that 'rats nest' of wires belies any pretense at clarity.  And that MOSFET number that he did - under the preposterous title of CHAPTER 2 - lol - that's got to go down in history as the most presumptuous 'title' that anyone has ever managed.  It's hilarious.  I'm looking forward to a Chapter 3 and upwards.

Anyway.  I think I've said my say.  There is not a one of them who is giving you the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it.  It's all spin. And it's getting progressively more heavy handed - and thereby less effectual.  I am doing myself considerably more harm in posting here than if I was to withdraw.  It's like a 'drug'.  I see yet another example of that 'spin' and I'm compelled to challenge it.  I think I need to rely on you readers here to filter out the truth for yourselves and let this well alone.  I'll try again to ignore these posts.  And  I did not post that slew of comments on his videos.  And nor will I.  It does me no good and doubt it will do TK any harm.  Just more 'fuel to the fire'.  So.  What's the point?  Better I spend my time more constructively.  At least our Easter and public holidays are mostly over.  And from next week most people will be back at work and I'll be able to move on preparing for those demos. 

Needless to say - our LeCroy is STILL not back from the calibration labs.  But I believe I'll be able to take possession of it tomorrow.  And I'm now armed with two cameras one of which is a HD number.  And I also have two tripods.  You need to invest in a tripod TK.  Especially as your compulsion to video everything is so evidently 'over whelming'.  It would greatly assist your argument.  But it would also give you no excuse for all that required poor focus. 

This schematic - which TK kindly 'preserved for posterity' - I'm posting it again.  Please do reference this specifically as those legs are 'joined'.  You'll see the absurdity of TK's and picowatt's proposal that current is flowing from the battery supply source through the function generator terminal and probe -  to the the source via the gate at Q2.   It's an adventurous argument.  But UTTERLY impossible.  The Gate voltage can only enable or not - the battery supply source current flow from the drain leg to the source leg.  The voltage at the gate is only and ever an applied voltage signal.  And it is never 'half on half off' as is implied in that Chapter 2 number. That's not possible. 

Regards,
Rosemary

My Dear Rosemary,

I stared at this "drawing" for some time last night before I went to bed after TK posted it.  Honestly, it makes no sense whatsoever.  Nowhere in your schematic is the source of a MOSFET tied directly to its gate.  You are apparently as well indicating that the gate of Q1 is grounded, is ths actually in reference to Q2, because this is the only device with a gate held near ground via connection to the CSR.

As for your statement that a MOSFET cannot be "half on half off", if you mean that a MOSFET cannot be biased partially on (i.e., it must be either fully on or fully off), that statement is totally absurd.  The ability of a MOSFET to be biased partially on is easily proved, well understood, and utilized everyday.  I cannot fathom how anyone could make such a statement.

I am through, much better things to do.

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My Dear Rosemary,

I stared at this "drawing" for some time last night before I went to bed after TK posted it.  Honestly, it makes no sense whatsoever.  Nowhere in your schematic is the source of a MOSFET tied directly to its gate.  You are apparently as well indicating that the gate of Q1 is grounded, is ths actually in reference to Q2, because this is the only device with a gate held near ground via connection to the CSR.

As for your statement that a MOSFET cannot be "half on half off", if you mean that a MOSFET cannot be biased partially on (i.e., it must be either fully on or fully off), that statement is totally absurd.  The ability of a MOSFET to be biased partially on is easily proved, well understood, and utilized everyday.  I cannot fathom how anyone could make such a statement.

I am through, much better things to do.

PW

And my dear picowatt - I correspondingly assure YOU that the schematic above is PRECISELY the way those MOSFETs are connected.  And it most CERTAINLY is illustrated in our schematic.  Just take another long hard look.  Delighted to see that you've not actually even realised this.  Because then I can, at least, not accuse you of 'malice of forethought'.   I realise too that it entirely obviates your argument.  Which is no doubt why you're anxious - yet again - to ignore my input and 'move on'.  God knows to where?  It's only going to be irrelevant to our circuit apparatus.  But there you go.  It has never been a requirement of yours to apply an appropriate argument.   

And IF any single MOSFET can be both 'on and off' then it is operating in a condition that is NOT applicable to our own uses of this.  You will notice that there is a remarkably robust current flow that is enabled though to the source and evident on our current sensing resistors.  And if you are still trying to argue that this is coming from the function generator - then you are quite simply WRONG and you would need first to prove that this is NOT how our MOSFETS are connected. They MOST ASSUREDLY ARE.

Rosie Pose