Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

PhiChaserSHOW ME ONE - JUST ONE POST - WHERE I HAVE STATED THIS?  I have ALWAYS KNOWN that current flows in the function generator probes.  IF it did not then there would be no VOLTAGE applied at the MOSFET gates.  BUT current does NOT pass from the function generator probes to the the circuit.  TK and picowatt DEPEND on this argument.  Their argument is that current from the function generator passes TO THE CIRCUIT.  I have DENIED this.  THEN.  They have then 'spun' the fact that I am CONFUSED and claim that there is no current flow in the function generator.  AND.  Because you're basically a bully and because you're trying to get onto the 'team' so to speak - and because you're not that perspicacious - you BOUGHT into their argument.  You have, effectively, been duped. 
As for the rest:IF the argument were irrefutable - then we would not be able to refute it.  Since we can - then the argument is NOT irrefutable.  We can REFUTE it simply be applying the source of Q2 directly to the negative rail of the battery supply and then the voltage across the  CSR will be POSITIVE?  HOW then would you explain that?THIS is correct.THIS is not correct.  This is also NOT correct.  It is also disprovable - very easily - by applying the source of Q2 directly to the Source of the supply battery.  WHY would I bother?  It is nonsense.  We'll demonstrate this together with a whole lot of little side tests to refute every single one of TK's 'allegations'.  LOL.

Rosie Pose

Of course you won't bother.  Why indeed would you want to seek out the truth, or learn?

I dare you to print out my post and show it to your experts.

If you are so confident in your assertions, what have you to fear?

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear PhiChaser,

Just cut through to the chase.  Forget spin.  Let's get 'technical'.  Do you concede that IF we apply Q2 source leg DIRECTLY to the source of battery supply - at its negative rail - that the oscillation will disappear and that there will be a continual positive voltage over the CSR - for the duration of each switching cycle.  The only variation being that the voltage will default to zero at each switching period?

IF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument.  IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests. And DON'T tell me when to those tests.  We STILL don't have our oscilloscope back from the calibration labs - which puts it a cool 1000 k's out of touch.  Quite apart from which we need to do our tests PROFESSIONALLY.  There's no argument that is likely to be supported with the sad amateurish efforts of TK.

Rosie Pose

Multiple edits.  Sorry guys

And may I add - that I would NOT under any circumstances advertise picowatt's sad little hand waving gestures which he uses by way of argument - to anyone at all.  It's bad enough and sad enough that the likes of you buy into it.  There is NO VALIDITY AT ALL in his claims.  Those claims of his are EASILY DISPROVED.

R

[picowatt]

My dear PhiChaser,

Just cut through to the chase.  Forget spin.  Let's get 'technical'.  Do you concede that IF we apply Q2 DIRECTLY to the source of battery supply - at its negative rail - that the oscillation will disappear and that there will be a continual positive voltage over the CSR - for the duration of each switching cycle.  The only variation being that the voltage will default to zero at each switching period?

IF you concede this then you are NEGATING picowatt's and TK's argument.  IF you don't concede this then we will prove you wrong when we do our tests. And DON'T tell me when to those tests.  We STILL don't have our oscilloscope back from the calibration labs - which puts it a cool 1000 k's out of touch.  Quite apart from which we need to do our tests PROFESSIONALLY.  There's no argument that is likely to be supported with the sad amateurish efforts of TK.

Rosie Pose

Multiple edits.  Sorry guys

You need to be more clear.  If you are using the same schematic, and connecting the source of Q2 directly to the battery negative, than you have removed the FG altogether and nothing will happen.  Q1 and Q2 will both remain off.

Now, if what you mean is that you are modifying the schematic so that the FG output remains connected to the Q1 gate and the source of Q2 is now connected only to the battery negative, then this is a different matter.

In this instance, when the FG output is positive, Q1 is turned on.  When Q1 turns on, the voltage at the CSR will go positive.  Assuming the gate of Q2 remains connected to the CSR, the positive voltage at the CSR can now turn on Q2 as well.  This would allow both Q1 and Q2 to be turned on at the same time.

This is comparing apples to oranges.  Again, print out what I have to say regarding the real schematic used and have it reviewed by your experts.

PW

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie, you continue to lie, misrepresent, threaten and insult, while YET AGAIN disregarding the expressed wishes of our host. You really are a piece of work.

I have made several demonstrations that you object to. PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. Show ONE SINGLE TEST where NERD performs differently from Tar Baby. You cannot.

You, AINSLIE, have illustrated over the past several days just what kind of person you are. Ignorant, arrogant, mendacious, insulting, threatening, and all the rest... it's all here in black and white.

And your strategy is perfectly clear: You are trying hard to make Stefan ban you, so you won't ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO ANY TESTS.

But several of us have actually asked Stefan NOT to ban you... because we want to see these miraculous tests that you claim you can perform.... but actually cannot. BRING IT ON, AINSLIE.... you cannot prove that a single one of my demonstrations performs differently than your kludge does.

Meanwhile, I CAN PROVE EVERYTHING I ASSERT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CIRCUIT, on demand, any where any time, you lying mendacious incompetent ignoramus. And I don't need any anonymous "academics" to do it either. Your definition of an expert is someone who agrees with you regardless of the data ..... and who will always remain anonymous. My definition is someone who is impartial and will state the truth publicly in a real document, and I can provide that kind of expert at the drop of a hat. Where are yours? In your sick mind, that's all.

YET AGAIN: I offer Tar Baby for side-by-side testing in comparison to NERD. I claim, as always, that Tar Baby performs just like NERD in ALL SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS.

Note now that Ainslie is claiming to have done tests similar to that in my latest video: running Tar Baby's negative bias from a CAPACITOR. I say that this is YET ANOTHER lie and that she has never done such a test.

Note that in the Naked Scientists posts below, talking about her earlier circuit, she claims to have patented the circuit, and she is told that proper standard measurement protocols would require that she put capacitors across the batteries to smooth the ripples. And that the person telling her this is an EXPERT mosfet circuit designer who actually does possess two granted patents on mosfet circuitry. How many lies of Ainslie's does this single image expose?
She has said that she has never claimed or even implied that she patented the circuit. Yet here she is conversing with people who clearly believe that she has.. because she TOLD THEM SO. And these people are indeed experts in the field... that's why she engaged them in the first place.  And they are clearly telling her that she is NOT using "standard measurement protocols" and they are telling her the same things that we have been telling her here.

Ainslie lies and lies, with every post she makes. I'm not even going to dissect her latest one for all the lies....
WHERE IS THE FUNCTION GENERATOR or BLOCKING DIODE IN MY VIDEO, AINSLIE? Since there is neither I expect AINSLIE to withdraw and retract everything she's said about that video based on her hallucinations. But will she? Of course not.... she seeks to blame her hallucination on my schematic... which is PERFECTLY CLEAR to everyone who has bothered to learn to read a schematic.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

NO picowatt  - NOT ACTUALLY

You need to be more clear.  If you are using the same schematic, and connecting the source of Q2 directly to the battery negative, than you have removed the FG altogether and nothing will happen.  Q1 and Q2 will both remain off.

What we will show is that EITHER Q1 is on OR Q2 is on - which means that - SURPRISINGLY - there is either a positive at Q1 or Q2.  Q2 DOES NOT MAGICALLY change to negative while Q1 is NEGATIVE.  They are in anti phase to each other and therefore in anti phase with respect to that flow of current.

Now, if what you mean is that you are modifying the schematic so that the FG output remains connected to the Q1 gate and the source of Q2 is now connected only to the battery negative, then this is a different matter.

WE DO NOT MEAN THIS.  What we mean is that IF Q1 if OFF - then Q2 is ON.  Which means that there's a continual applied positive voltage to allow the flow of current from the battery supply during the ON period which is thereby rendered ON during BOTH halves of that switched cycle.

In this instance, when the FG output is positive, Q1 is turned on.  When Q1 turns on, the voltage at the CSR will go positive.  Assuming the gate of Q2 remains connected to the CSR, the positive voltage at the CSR can now turn on Q2 as well.  This would allow both Q1 and Q2 to be turned on at the same time.

This is comparing apples to oranges.  Again, print out what i have to say regarding the real schematic used and have it reviewed by your experts.

NOT ACTUALLY.  What you are doing is trying explain oranges as apples.  What we're doing is PROVING that the battery supply source is DISCONNECTED during that period of the duty cycle when the signal applied to the gate at Q1 IS NEGATIVE.  For the DURATION.

Rosie Pose