Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

TK:

Here is a goodie for the space transit fetishists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foBUaOKsIZM

P.S.:

But shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos.

"Mr. Pregnant - Do Not Watch My Videos" - say no more.   

[TinselKoala]

Here, Rosemary, this is for you.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Regarding the two bias conditions and the resulting circuit currents, I hope the attached drawing answers most if not all questions.

Neither case shown was with oscillation present.

Poynty that diagram of yours is not right.  Your reference to that 'Q2' MOSFET shows the bias supply in series with the main supply.  Which is correct.  As is your Q1 MOSFET reference where you show the bias supply is in parallel to the main supply.  Here's where you 'error'.

. The body diode of your reference Q1 is NOT connected to the supply source or to the circuit's negative drain rail.
. It is ONLY connected to the terminal of the function generator's probe.
. It is floating - together with the your referenced Q1 Source.
. Therefore it CANNOT conduct current from the battery supply source -
. Even if that battery supply exceeded that diode's 'zener knee' voltage level

If you want to argue that the battery supply source can discharge current through your referenced Q1 you'll have to argue it against it's actual connections.

Regards,
Rosie

And may I add - IF that diode could conduct current from the battery supply while the bias supply is in parallel - then even more reason to suppose that it would do so while the bias supply were in series with the battery supply source.  In which case there would be a continual battery discharge and the MOSFETs would NOT switch. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys here's an open admission to the extent of 'misdirection' our little TK is taking us. 

But shooting impromptu documentation of demonstrations designed to entertain a small audience and to educate an even smaller one... heck. I'll hold the camera under my chin, dim the lights to encourage hallucinations, reduce the HD originals to .flv, show the dog and the NERD preventer, all of that. If someone doesn't like it, they really should take the issue up with whoever it is that forces them to watch my videos. And if they fail to Get The Message, they only have their early educational choices and experiences to thank for that.)

Which is PRECISELY why I don't bother to watch his videos.  They're vulgar and gross and grossly vulgar.  And they're a measure of TK's actual interest in this subject.  I've mentioned it before.  It has NOTHING to do with science.  It is, nonetheless, amusing, to see him flail around for an explanation for what clearly are anomalous results. 

Rosie Pose

[MileHigh]

for an explanation for what clearly are anomalous results.

Two months of hard work down the drain!  Shucks!