Testing the TK Tar Baby

[PhiChaser]

LOL  Not actually PhiChaser.  No-one is listening. The best any of us can do is read.  And self-evidently YOU are reading his posts.  Which means that I am most certainly NOT the only one 'reading'.  And I'm not sure that you can determine exactly who IS or IS NOT reading here.  I think the best you can do is speculate.  Which makes your observation spurious and unprovable.  Like so many of your 'allegations' and 'observations'. 

Golly.
as ever
Rosie Pose

Heh heh, yeah, you got me there Rosemary. I read his post. I'm sure we all did...
I retract my statement. Sorry Wilby. I admit, I read your post.
The rest of my post still stands as written however. 

PC

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

You are still 'disconnected' and spouting nonsense.  You don't stand a chance and your ship is indeed sinking.  You are in denial and still waiting for your waiter to bring you your tea even though the ship is listing to port at 30 degrees.

TK did indeed do a dim bulb test.  You refused to answer my questions about your own dim bulb test.  When you do it you are going to be in shock.

Poor Rosie Posie in denial on the Ship of Doom.

There is nothing left to do but laugh.  The never-ending drama.

Assuming that PW also does a replication you are going to be in for a real shock.

MileHigh

PS:  Quoting you:

who applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance.

Please tell us how to "factor in impedance."  We really want to know.  We want a detailed explanation on how to do this along with a concrete example with all of your work shown.  We want to see numbers.

You have made your "factoring in impedance" reference many times.  So it's time for you to explain what this means in explicit detail.

We are all looking forward to getting your clarification on this issue.

[TinselKoala]

My dear MileHigh, 

Since you are simply repeating your usual post then I'll simply repeat my earlier answer.

I'm entirely satisfied that the invective and 'bashing' was entirely from TK and picowatt and evolvingape and FTC and PhiChaser.  Me?  I merely argued their SPURIOUS assumption and their SPURIOUS allegation that 20 watts was representative of the energy applied to our element resistor. It was indeed a ridiculous proposal.  Clearly 20 watts was NEVER applied on ANY continual basis at all. Therefore, correctly the wattage should have read 2.5 watts.  You are all of you seasoned anti over unity campaigners.  It is a sad truth that our poor science must fall victim in that campaign.  And the flaunted credentials in support of that claimed 'competence' is lacking in EVIDENCE.  TK must be the only student that has graduated with a degree in electrical engineering - with HONOURS - that STILL does not know that a MOSFET is not a mosfet - that a CSR is NOT a CVR - and who then further supposes that any part of any single voltage value from a switched cycle can represent the ACTUAL level of WATTAGE.  He is also the ONLY such honours graduate who applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance.  And notwithstanding the BURDEN of all this professed professionalism - indulges in level of invective that would - outside of the freedoms that Harti is allowing him - make him criminally accountable.

And may I add.  He is also the only honours graduate who has claimed that instantaneous wattage can be 'inferred' 'applied' 'computed' from a switched cycle.  Extraordinary.  And the worst of it is that he STILL claims this. There most certainly WAS an issue related to instantaneous power vs average power.  And our little TK disgraced himself with an oversight that should have hit him between the eyes - certainly if he hopes to convince anyone that he has any credentials at all.  As it indeed it should also have occurred to picowatt.  But at least picowatt admits that he is not credentialed.  It's interesting to see how they both continue with that tar brush application.  Notwithstanding.  LOL. 

Rosie Posie

1. Where have I ever claimed to have a degree in electrical engineering? Two days ago she said I was a psychologist. Polly Parrot is flailing around again.

2. I have made no errors in my calculations. Nowhere did I ever say or imply that 20 watts was dissipated at the load resistor in the case we are discussing, and everybody but the hallucinating parrot knows that. I CALCULATED THE PROPER DISSIPATION AT THE LOAD RESISTOR WHEN THIS ALL STARTED, and SINCE I WAS DISCUSSING ONLY THE ON TIME THE DUTY CYCLE DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE PICTURE.

3. Polly Parrot THINKS that I did not "factor in" impedance. She is LYING YET AGAIN. Probably she cannot figure out how to download and open the SPREADSHEET where all my calculations and data are GIVEN for inspection by ANYONE, which I have linked several times. Where is Polly's comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance? Nowhere.

4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?

(Edit: for a moment there I referenced the wrong scope shot, where she used a 50 second timebase setting-- the one with the blown mosfet. This scopeshot has a 50 millisecond timebase setting. Sorry.)


Keep it up, Polly, you are just about down to the bedrock, scraping away with those bloody fingernails.


Polly thinks I am "criminally accountable" for something. I think that is an ACTIONABLE SLANDER and that she should be very very careful in her accusations, because I HAVE PROOF of everything I've ever said here.... AND SHE DOES NOT.

(BW: For "current sensing resistor" Bing returns over 5 million hits. For "current viewing resistor"... over nine million hits. And what exactly is the difference between a MOSFET and a mosfet? Perhaps MOSFET is easier for ancient eyes to read, but as far as I can tell an IRFPG50 MOSFET performs exactly like an IRFPG50 mosfet (I have both types in stock). Of course... I didn't use a digital instrument to test them....)

[TinselKoala]

We have shown where our probes are 'hooked up' - in our schematic.  And yes - IF there are still measurement errors - then that has to be proved.

It has been proven time and time again, with your own data, and time and time again by EVERYONE who has ever tried to "replicate" your results, whether in simulation or hardware.

And the people at journals who are rejecting your pitiful submissions can see this for themselves. Five minutes looking at THE SCOPESHOTS YOU HAVE INCLUDED IN THE MANUSCRIPTS is enough for anyone who knows how to read a scope to conclude that your measurements are very precise measurements of garbage.

[Groundloop]

Groundloop - the plot thickens.
Exactly WHICH MOSFET measurement are you referring to?  Which scope shot?  Which measurement?

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

There is no plot. And I'm not referring to any scope shots or measurements yet, because I said I will do
this test this weekend. And you should know your circuit by now. It is quite obvious that I'm going
to test the mosfet that switches ON when you put a positive bias to the gate and NOT the other one
that oscillate with a positive bias and has a grounded gate. Your circuit drawing has been posted a zillion
times now and you should know your circuit. I will post a drawing of what I will be testing this weekend.

GL.