Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.

Not actually.  I both can and have. 

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

Dear readers,

I see from her last post "over there" that the operation of oscilloscopes, function generators, and indeed, her very own circuit, continue to remain a mystery of ill conceived misconceptions.

She continues to believe that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG trace correctly.  Now she wants some method to test this.  An excellent method would be to FAX or email LeCroy a copy of FIG3 and just ask THEM what the indicated voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle, but then, this would be way too easy.  Clearly, she does not understand how an oscilloscope functions or how to use it properly. 

In FIG 3 of the first paper, there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1, which should turn Q1 fully on.  The CSR trace indicates it is not turning on.  Q1 must not be functioning or is not connected as per the provided schematic.  There can be no other explanation.  This is also evident in FIG 7, wherein sufficient gate drive is being applied to Q1 to turn Q1 on, and yet again, no current flow is indicated.   

Her response at this time (she originally claimed that the offset numbers on the LeCroy were not being factored in)  is that the 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG values correctly.  I suspect that it would take her a very long time to learn enough about 'scopes to realize and accept how ludicrous her "needs to be AC coupled" argument truly is.

From her recent post, she also demonstrates that she does not understand how to read her own schematic, how a function generator operates, or the actions that turn Q2 on in her circuit.

She claims that the FG somehow applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 which causes it to turn on.  Anyone that can read a schematic can instantly see that this is not possible.

In the schematic, the gate of Q2 is connected directly to the non-battery end of the CSR.  The gate of Q2 can, therefore, never be any voltage other than the voltage at the non-battery end of the CSR.  This is as plain as day for all to see.  Yet, again, she continues to believe the FG is somehow applying a positive voltage directly to the gate of Q2,  She apparently does not understand that a function generator's output swings between a positive and negative voltage RELATIVE TO its signal ground terminal.  The function generator signal ground in her schematic is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR (hereafter referred to simply as "CSR").  All can see, therefore, that the function generator output will either be a voltage that is more positive than the CSR, or a voltage that is more negative than the CSR. 

When the FG output is a positive voltage in excess of Vth, this positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1 which turns Q1 on (or at least it should as in FIG5, but mysteriously, not in FIG3 and FIG7).  Q2 remains off, as its source terminal is simultaneously made positive with respect to its gate.  There is very little voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen inside the FG as the only current being drawn thru the FG during this positive portion of the FG cycle is the Q1 gate current, which is very low, typically in the picoamp to nanoamp range.

When the Fg output is a negative voltage,  the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off.  Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).  When the negative voltage from the FG is applied to the source terminal of Q2, Q2 turns on (making the source terminal of Q2 negative with respect to its gate causes Q2 to turn on) .  However, as Q2 turns on, current flows thru Q2 and thru the FG.  This current flow thru the FG causes a voltage drop across the 50 ohm Rgen in the FG.  Because of this, the voltage as measured at the output of the FG, when its output is a negative voltage, can only be the Q2 turn on voltage for any given amount of current passing thru it.  Esentially, in this mode, Q2, in concert with the 50 ohm Rgen, acts as a current regulator and Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation.  Ibias, that is, the DC current that flows thru Q2 and the FG when the FG output is a negative voltage, is expected to be in the 40-250 milliamp range and is determined by the FG open circuit negative voltage, the 50 ohm Rgen, and the threshold voltage of Q2 (Ibias has been measured and confirmed by both .99's simulations and TK's empirical measurements).  As one can clearly see from the 'scope captures, regardless of the open circuit negative voltage of the FG, the FG output is always at -Vth due to the voltage drop across Rgen from the bias current flowing thru Q2 and Rgen.  As the FG output is made more negative, Ibias is increased and the voltage drop across Rgen also increases.  The FG output, therefore, when outputting a negative voltage, can only be the source to gate turn on voltage required for a given Ibias.  (one would have thought that this "clamping action" that is obvious in all 'scope captures when the FG is a negative voltage, regardless of the FG offset settings, would have caused "someone" to wonder why.  And clearly it is due to the Vdrop across Rgen when Q2 bias current is flowing thru the FG)

But again, the above operation of the FG and Q2 is disputed.  She believes that the FG is somehow magically applying a positive voltage to the gate of Q2, which is very clearly just plain nonsense.  The gate of Q2 is connected to the non-battery end of the CSR, and a 'scope channel is specifically tasked with monitoring that voltage.  The FG does not cause the voltage at that point (Q2's gate/non-battery end of CSR) to go positive in excess of Vth.  Yet, the FG trace does clearly show that the source of Q2 is being made negative with respect to the Q2 gate causing Q2 to be biased on.

I suspect that no attempt was made to quantify the Q2 bias current during the March demo, as it was likely believed that all 5 MOSFET's were in parallel at that time and connected as Q1 is connected.  Had they realized that the Q2 array was inadvertently connected common gate, and understood the basic operation of that well known and well understood configuration, they may have made an attempt to quantify Ibias and provded that data in the "paper".

It apparently makes more sense, to her, to claim that the operation of Q2 is more akin to room temperature superconductivity than to accept the well understood, predicted, simulated, and empirically measured and confirmed operation of the common gate portion of her circuit (Q2).

These two issues, Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it clearly should be, and her inability to understand how the FG biases on Q2 when the FG output is a negative voltage and the subsequent current flow thru Q2 and the FG, represent glaring errors and misunderstandings on her part that should be corrected in, or retracted from, her "papers".

PW

     

[Magluvin]

Not actually.  I both can and have. 

Rosie Pose

There are 2 of you?  And you make fun of my posts. 

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Magsy?

This was in answer to Glen.

You cant even supply one (1) complete set of test data for a single claimed COP>INFINITY device test and haven't produced anything new in over a year just bloviating and baiting for fights wasting everyone's time.

Not actually.  I both can and have.

There are 2 of you?  And you make fun of my posts.

But in point of fact - I find it very amusing to see the extent to which everyone applies liberal and rather unrestrained criticism of me and of our work - and then they seem to take umbrage when I'm NOT offended.  At best - I'm amused.  And NO - there's only 1 of me - I think!  I hope so anyway.

Regards
Rosie

added

[Rosemary Ainslie]

picowatt

I started reading your post and just got disheartened at its length and obscurity.  Forgive me - if you're depending on my reading it I, unfortunately, just don't have the appetite. I have a very short attention span and absolutely no interest in your opinions.  Unless it was not intended for my readership.  In which case all is dandy.

Rosie Posie