Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Magsy?  Is that it?  Is there more?  Do let me know.

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly I missed these points.  Sorry.  I must have been speed reading...

Then on the same page, a "few" posts below, Kitty quotes you as saying
"No.  No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING.  Golly.  Whatever next?  Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors.  And that applies to them all.  "

Not sure where your quote starts and where his quote stops.  Either way - here's the thing.  A MOSFET is designed to conduct current from an applied switch - or as Poynty puts it - from an applied 'polarity'.  They are NOT designed to avalanche.  That's very much a secondary attribute that is a consequence of their primary function.

You clearly dont read the data sheets.

Not actually.  It's all I ever do on those downloads of ours.  Over and over.  To exhaustion.  I am TRULY skilled in power analysis after all these years.  Believe it or not.  Not an EXPERT.  But certainly competent.  And considerably more so than our little TK.  Self evidently.

So just that one detail about the "Avalanching", we can see you are arguing something you clearly dont have any idea about.

Not actually.  I'm inclined to suspect that you and TK et al - have DELIBERATELY confused the sense of my post.

But if you had read the data sheet, you would. That is, even if the "Avalanching" were a criteria that you were interested in in the first place, even just along the way, then I would not be posting these words at this moment. But I am.

I see now that your reference to 'data sheet' is to the specifications of the MOSFET.  I stand my my earlier statement.  This is not and never has been the object of a transistor.  Or that's certainly as I understand it.  And IF I'm wrong on this point - which is very likely - then it most certainly is NOT the object of our application of this.

Even though I did repost some of what you requested, after saying that I wouldnt, I have a feeling that your response will be nill on the subject. Where as TK's fireworks are on topic, as you should know if you had followed thoroughly.  But it appears you are not.

Not actually.  The 'fireworks' that you think are 'relevant' will NEVER induce energy efficiency to an application.  Our ENTIRE focus is energy efficiency.

There you go Magsy.  I think I've covered all those 'HOLES'.  Unless you know of some more. 

Rosie Pose

[Magluvin]

There you go Magsy.  I think I've covered all those 'HOLES'.  Unless you know of some more. 

Rosie Pose

You  think you've covered "all" those holes?   lol  I suppose the other six from Pico, that I listed in that same post were, invisible?  Yet you say to filled "ALL" those holes.

You try to be tricky with the words thats for sure Rose. Tricky indeed. Nice try, but pic fail, considering we were just talking about you not paying close attn to what is posted.
Oh the irony.  But what else is new.


Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Magsy?  What have I missed?  I thought I'd covered them all....

You  think you've covered "all" those holes?   lol  I suppose the other six from Pico, that I listed in that same post were, invisible?  Yet you say to filled "ALL" those holes.

You try to be tricky with the words thats for sure Rose. Tricky indeed. Nice try, but pic fail, considering we were just talking about you not paying close attn to what is posted.
Oh the irony.  But what else is new.


Mags

PLEASE.  Let me know.  I REALLY want to answer you as comprehensively as possible.

Rosie Pose

[Magluvin]

Ooops, I have missed a post also. Ill read you Pico list response in the morning. Didnt get to sleep til 330 last night and its 117 now.

Rose, I dont know what to say really. I havnt even read the Pico reply yet, but I have a feeling that your responses will be, well, we will see.

Mags