Testing the TK Tar Baby

picowatt · May 09, 2012, 10:42:22 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
No picowatt...
NOT ACTUALLY. Not even CLOSE. 3.33 watts is NOT 20 watts. 20 watts MAY explain the rate of temperature rise. 3.33 recurring CERTAINLY WOULD NOT.

Rosie Pose.

So are you saying that during the positive portion of the FG cycle that 20 watts is not being dissipated?

To arrive at your 3.33watts, I assume you multiplied the 20 watts flowing during the "on time" by the percentage of the cycle that the FG is "on". That gives you an average dissipation, but that does not mean that 20 watts isn't flowing during the "on" time.

PW

Rosemary Ainslie · May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM

Quote from: picowatt on May 09, 2012, 10:42:22 AM
So are you saying that during the positive portion of the FG cycle that 20 watts is not being dissipated?

To arrive at your 3.33watts, I assume you multiplied the 20 watts flowing during the "on time" by the percentage of the cycle that the FG is "on". That gives you an average dissipation, but that does not mean that 20 watts isn't flowing during the "on" time.

PW

picowatt. IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated. That means that there are NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time. EVER. And no amount of hand waving is going to change that. Watts is watts. No way around that definition. Sorry.

Rosie Pose

Watts are caculated over time. That's IT. Always it's represented as an average over time. NO OTHER WAY TO CUT IT.

TinselKoala · May 09, 2012, 10:45:47 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:30:31 AM
My dear Leon

This is yet more examples of a RANT. I have JUST SHOWN YOU that I have NOTHING to correct. You on the other hand are WRONG. ENTIRELY SO.

Rosie Pose.

Sorry. I addressed the wrong person. It's confusing. And I'm getting way too old. LOL

You have SHOWN nothing at all. You have only repeated your same old WRONG argument yet again. Therefore YOU LIE AGAIN by saying that you've "shown" anything at all with respect to our calculations. All you have shown is another illustration of your abysmal ignorance and your overweening arrogance.

SHOWING means performing calculations, giving links to supporting information, giving a demonstration, etc. IT DOES NOT MEAN MORE BLOWHARD BLOVIATING.

If you think that the power DURING THE ON TIME is only 3.33 Watts when the gate of Q1 is receiving the 5 volts positive, SHOW HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER.

That is what "SHOW" means in this context: produce the calculation and JUSTIFY YOUR RESULTS.... as I HAVE ALWAYS DONE and as anyone who claims any knowledge of power calculations should be able to do.

BUT YOU CANNOT because you simply still do not understand the issues at all. Somebody whispered "duty cycle" and you, like a mindless parrot, parrot it back just like a tape recorder, and with just as much understanding as a tape recorder has of the issue.

Rosemary Ainslie · May 09, 2012, 10:50:33 AM

OK guys,

This is the entire PROOF required that we are no longer talking science. And TK is now advancing something that has NOTHING to do with the standard model - nor established measurement protocols - nor anything at all that is even half way relevant to power analysis. And this post can be dismissed in its entirety. And for those of you who KNOW power analysis - then this is really as far as any of you need go to see that TK is on a MISSION. And that mission has NOTHING to do with science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 10:45:47 AM
You have SHOWN nothing at all. You have only repeated your same old WRONG argument yet again. Therefore YOU LIE AGAIN by saying that you've "shown" anything at all with respect to our calculations. All you have shown is another illustration of your abysmal ignorance and your overweening arrogance.

SHOWING means performing calculations, giving links to supporting information, giving a demonstration, etc. IT DOES NOT MEAN MORE BLOWHARD BLOVIATING.

If you think that the power DURING THE ON TIME is only 3.33 Watts when the gate of Q1 is receiving the 5 volts positive, SHOW HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER.

That is what "SHOW" means in this context: produce the calculation and JUSTIFY YOUR RESULTS.... as I HAVE ALWAYS DONE and as anyone who claims any knowledge of power calculations should be able to do.

BUT YOU CANNOT because you simply still do not understand the issues at all. Somebody whispered "duty cycle" and you, like a mindless parrot, parrot it back just like a tape recorder, and with just as much understanding as a tape recorder has of the issue.

picowatt · May 09, 2012, 10:55:00 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 10:45:36 AM
picowatt. IF you are going to talk 'watts' then you need to factor in the duty cycle and the ACTUAL watts dissipated. That means that there iare NOT 20 watts delivered during the on time. EVER. And no amount of hand waving is going to change that. Watts is watts. No way around that definition. Sorry.

Rosie Pose

20 watts flows during the "on" time in that 'scope shot. Only need to factor in the duty cycle for average dissipation.

Watts is watts...

Sorry,
PW