Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

And WHY do you keep asking this?  We've covered this point.  EXHAUSTIVELY.  In your early posts on my locked thread.  Is there some need to keep referencing this?  Is it the required 'spin'?  I think we're all rather tired of it.  With or without respect.

Rosie Pose

I'll tell you why.  The issue regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 of your first paper was brought to your attention several months ago.  You insisted that I, as well as others, were reading the 'scope incorrectly.  You first insisted that the offset numbers somehow needed to be factored in.  Then you said it had something to do with AC coupling.  An annotated 'scope capture was sent to you (not by me) for you to show to whomever you wished to verify the 'scope was being read correctly.  I called LeCroy, and confirmed that the 'scope was being read correctly (something you could have done as well and still can do...).

When you were asked what voltage you thought the 'scope capture was indicating during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG3, you stated around +6 volts or so.  Even though this is wrong (it is clearly closer to +12volts), Q1 should turn on even at your stated lower +6 volts or so.  The CSR trace clearly shows that Q1 is not turing on even though your stated voltage of +6 volts or so is sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1.  When this was brought to your attention, you began using your personal attacks towards me in an attempt to just bury the issue.

You have now made corrections to your "papers" with regard to other errors brought to your attention, such as your math regarding the total battery capacity.  You have had plenty of opportunity to verify the readings on the 'scope with one of your "experts" or with LeCroy.  If you were interested at all in the truth or in performing due diligence, you would have confirmed the Q1 gate drive voltage as indicated by the LeCroy captures.

If you had done so, you would have to admit that there was indeed a problem with Q1 in the listed figures, making all test data and discussion regarding FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 invalid and in need of modification or withdrawal from your paper.

Your FIG5, made the month before, shows less gate drive voltage than is indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace clearly shows the current flow due to Q1 being turned.

So, again, in FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on?

Feel free to continue your personal attacks, I'll just stick to the facts...







 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My Dear picowatt

I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts.  What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell.  It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend.  It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote.  It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume.  Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.

I'll tell you why.  The issue regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 of your first paper was brought to your attention several months ago.  You insisted that I, as well as others, were reading the 'scope incorrectly.  You first insisted that the offset numbers somehow needed to be factored in.  Then you said it had something to do with AC coupling.  An annotated 'scope capture was sent to you (not by me) for you to show to whomever you wished to verify the 'scope was being read correctly.  I called LeCroy, and confirmed that the 'scope was being read correctly (something you could have done as well and still can do...)

I did NOT say you had read the scope incorrectly.  I simply stated that the coupling was set to DC.  You KNOW THIS.  It should have been set to AC.  The coupling can be varied on each and every channel.  CORRECTLY this should have displayed a DC VALUE. 

When you were asked what voltage you thought the 'scope capture was indicating during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG3, you stated around +6 volts or so.  Even though this is wrong (it is clearly closer to +12volts), Q1 should turn on even at your stated lower +6 volts or so.  The CSR trace clearly shows that Q1 is not turing on even though your stated voltage of +6 volts or so is sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1.  When this was brought to your attention, you began using your personal attacks towards me in an attempt to just bury the issue.

It IS 6 volts or thereby.  In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby.  YOU KNOW THIS.  it is less than 6 volts AC.  it is not less than 6 volts DC.  AGAIN.  You KNOW THIS.

You have now made corrections to your "papers" with regard to other errors brought to your attention, such as your math regarding the total battery capacity.  You have had plenty of opportunity to verify the readings on the 'scope with one of your "experts" or with LeCroy.  If you were interested at all in the truth or in performing due diligence, you would have confirmed the Q1 gate drive voltage as indicated by the LeCroy captures.

We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity.  EVER.  We have NO NEED TO. 

If you had done so, you would have to admit that there was indeed a problem with Q1 in the listed figures, making all test data and discussion regarding FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 invalid and in need of modification or withdrawal from your paper.

YOU WISH.  That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.

Your FIG5, made the month before, shows less gate drive voltage than is indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace clearly shows the current flow due to Q1 being turned.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.  I cannot change any of the data that is shown on the LeCroy.  I'm not clever enough.  No-one is.

So, again, in FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on?

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THAT YOU CAN DEMAND ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS?  YOU ARE NOT GOD.  How DISGUSTING. That you can sit back and repeat your same stupid questions and expect an answer.  TRUST ME ON THIS.  I will NEVER again directly answer any of your posts.  It leaves me feeling sullied.

picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are.  I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum.  Here it's likely to be censored.  I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word.

R.

[picowatt]

My Dear picowatt

I cannot express the disgust I feel when I acknowledge your posts.  What miserable and malicious motives drive you I cannot tell.  It's not as if you're qualified - which you try to pretend.  It's not as if you're an experimentalist which you promote.  It's not as if you're interested in the scientific method - which you presume.  Just a catastrophic and dismal contribution from the comforts of that arm chair that groans under the huge bulk of your physical weight - albeit greatly relieved by the lack of any grey matter that is usually associated with our brains.
It IS 6 volts or thereby.  In fact it is LESS than 6 volts or thereby.  YOU KNOW THIS.  it is less than 6 volts AC.  it is not less than 6 volts DC.  AGAIN.  You KNOW THIS.
We have made NO CORRECTIONS regarding total battery capacity.  EVER.  We have NO NEED TO. 
YOU WISH.  That would be your DREAM COME TRUE.

picowatt - you seem to forget that I KNOW who you are.  I will CERTAINLY make your identity known when I work on my own forum.  Here it's likely to be censored.  I have your NUMBER - in every sense of the word. 

Rosie Pose

Your FIG5, made the month before, shows less gate drive voltage than is indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace clearly shows the current flow due to Q1 being turned.

So, again, in FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on?

Feel free to continue your personal attacks, I'll just stick to the facts...

More personal attacks as usual, and no correct or substantive data.  I'll bet the truth hurts even moreso...

So, again, what is your explanation for Q1 not turning on in FIG3?  I must have missed it.

What is the gate voltage being applied during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG5?  Does it not look to be less than is indicated in FIG3?  Yet Q1 is clearly turning on in that capture's test.

And no, I do not know very well that it is 6 volts AC, in FIG3, it is actually approx +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

AGAIN.
so - Poynty Point,

I think that's about the most you'll get by way of comment.  Is that enough?  I think we're both more than capable of discussing this without the gratuitous irrelevancies that picowatt and TK need. 

Let me know.  I'm waiting patiently at a far nicer forum than this.  If you're up for it - we'd be delighted to discuss things with you.  And the same to Groundloop.  Frankly I'd also be delighted to include those circuit variants you've designed - into a thread for further discussion.  We've built that circuit BTW.  But I've not yet tested it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[picowatt]

AGAIN.
so - Poynty Point,

I think that's about the most you'll get by way of comment.  Is that enough?  I think we're both more than capable of discussing this without the gratuitous irrelevancies that picowatt and TK need. 

Let me know.  I'm waiting patiently at a far nicer forum than this.  If you're up for it - we'd be delighted to discuss things with you.  And the same to Groundloop.  Frankly I'd also be delighted to include those circuit variants you've designed - into a thread for further discussion.  We've built that circuit BTW.  But I've not yet tested it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

While your at it, ask them what they think the gate drive to Q1 is in FIG3 during the positive portion of the FG cycle.  Ask them if Q1 should be turning on even though the CSR trace indicates it is not.

The LeCroy does not lie... superb instrument...

ADDED:  And do you really believe the issue regarding Q1 not turning on when it should is "irrelevant"?