Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I have NEVER made death threats against anyone ever in my entire life.  THAT IS ALSO SLANDEROUS

Until you perform a definitive battery draw down test my "Edited for accuracy" comment is perfectly valid based upon all available data. After all you have been at this for 15 years and have never performed the test yet, despite claiming you have, because you cannot do simple math.

Additionally, if you think I am going to provide you with my address after you have made death threats to TinselKoala, you are clearly insane.

Why would harti have my address ? You nuts woman ?

WE MOST CERTAINLY HAVE PERFORMED DEFINITIVE BATTERY DRAW DOWN TESTS therefore your 'edited for accuracy' comment is UTTERLY INVALID.  And your excuse to 'duck' accountability is clearly because you are that cowardly.  But an email address may be enough for serving a complaint.  I'm not sure about it.  I know one needs to establish some kind of legal correspondent in the locale of any party to a legal action.  But I'll check up on it.  If an email address is enough then I'll certainly be forwarding you some notification in the near future.

Rosie Pose
ADDED

[poynt99]

@.99:
Does the sim allow for substituting a really LARGE capacitor, say 1000 F or so, for the battery? You could model the battery's ESR and inductance with simulated discrete components. If so, one could charge the capacitor to 75 volts and let the sim run, monitoring the voltage at the board (with the stray lead inductances) and also directly at the capacitor itself, along with the other usual parameters. The first should show the negative mean power product. Then you could also show the capacitor's voltage over the time interval that the circuit runs.
Apologies if you have already done this. Perhaps if you have, you could post a link to the results. Thanx...
--TK

TK,

Yes of course that could all be done, easily. But why do it?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

sean - your extraordinary level of malice is somewhat inappropriate.  I'm not sure that our engagement has been such to warrant it.  It seems you are most anxious to join in the party with your insults?  Is that it?  You enjoy this public 'bashing'?  You're happy to extend it despite it serving no value but your own vicarious enjoyment in gang bullying?  Feel free.  But may I also impose on you to make your email address available.  I am not about to take the one on offer seriously.

Oh but I might be interested in how *you* characterise *my* remarks, Rosemary. And I don't place the same value on privacy that TK does, so I don't labour under the same constraints if I get tired of you throwing shit in my direction.


TK has made a number of claims that you seem to believe are defamatory or actionable but you are thwarted by his anonymity.


Tell me which claims specifically and where I agree, ill repeat them and you are free to pursue me. Get on with it.

Rosie Pose

[Groundloop]

The .36W difference is coming from somewhere, but where? What is causing it, do you know? You said you wanted to know more about what is happening inside this circuit.

If you measure the voltage across the D-S of each MOSFET, you will then know if the body diode in either MOSFET is turning ON, i.e. being forward-biased to pass current. If they are, then you know that is the mechanism, and your assumption was correct. However, if they are reverse-biased, then you know it is something else.

Hint: My simulation is NOT oscillating.

Let's say your measurements indicate that the voltages are largely positive; what other mechanism(s) could be attributed to that 0.36W difference when Q1 is installed?

.99

I can set up the circuit again and recheck my measurements but it have to wait until tomorrow.

GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK,

Yes of course that could all be done, easily. But why do it?

Poynty?  You know, TK knows - WE ALL KNOW - that a capacitor CANNOT enable that oscillation.  And we ALL KNOW WHY.  Why then are you getting cryptic.  Just say it.  Outright.  And then TELL US WHY.

Rosie Pose