Testing the TK Tar Baby

[WilbyInebriated]

On that spec title page, they list standard features features of the device, 6 of them

Number 2 on that list is,  "Repetitive Avalanche Rated".

To me, it seems to be an important feature of this transistor that it is capable of handling a rated avalanche state, "Repetitively".  That means it is rated to be in a circuit by where the circuit could cause an avalanche state, "repetitively".  Can we all agree on that?

Otherwise why would it be stated in the top 6 features of this transistor, coming in at number 2 in that list?

There are data sheets for transistors that dont show this as a feature or quality. So why would this sheet do so?  An error? Typo? Is it there just for all to ignore??

You said  "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."

Or certainly as you understand it?  Well ya must be stuck in groundhog day with Bill Murray. Because you seem to refuse to try and understand something new to you. At least Bill took advantage of it. He learned something new every day.  This transistor sheet does show that your transistor is designed to do just that, Avalanche Repetitively. Ya might want to write that down.
You can go ahead and stand by your words.              Im going to stand over here. 

Mags

mags...  mosfets aren't designed to avalanche, they are designed to switch. avalanche is a condition that can occur and yes, certain transistors are "ruggedized" or as you seem to be saying "designed" to survive an avalanche condition. this is the avalanche rating in the datasheet. http://www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf

i think you both are correct, and neither of you can see the "validity" of the others argument.

[Magluvin]

mags...  mosfets aren't designed to avalanche, they are designed to switch. avalanche is a condition that can occur and yes, certain transistors are "ruggedized" or as you seem to be saying "designed" to survive an avalanche condition. this is the avalanche rating in the datasheet. http://www.microsemi.com/en/sites/default/files/micnotes/APT9402.pdf

i think you both are correct, and neither of you can see the "validity" of the others argument.

Thanks Wilby

Conclusions:
Specifying an avalanche rated MOSFET into a
circuit which does not require it comes with a
penalty. A better solution would be careful attention
to PC board layout, transformer design and the
addition of an expensive snubber to prevent over
voltage spikes. This solution will result in a more
reliable, more efficient and possibly less expensive
system.

Mags

[TinselKoala]

Doesn't anybody remember that Ainslie specified that the mosfet used MUST be avalanche rated, back in the old days?  That is one reason I find the present "discussion" so hilarious.

Meanwhile, the crappy little Sassy ClassE is doing what it is designed to do, with high efficiency. Less than 30 VDC input from a non-regulated filtered supply, and it will light as many of those CFLs as you can bring into the field. Wirelessly.

[WilbyInebriated]

Doesn't anybody remember that Ainslie specified that the mosfet used MUST be avalanche rated, back in the old days?  That is one reason I find the present "discussion" so hilarious.

yeah it's almost as funny as back in the old days when it took all you "experts" 100 or so pages to get around to "discussing" it back then... or your daffynition of 'replicate'... or your 'theory' about mosfet performance...   ohhh how we laughed!

Meanwhile, the crappy little Sassy ClassE is doing what it is designed to do, with high efficiency. Less than 30 VDC input from a non-regulated filtered supply, and it will light as many of those CFLs as you can bring into the field. Wirelessly.

but yet not as efficient as rose's heater... which as you noted earlier is 100% efficient.

[fuzzytomcat]

****** BUMP ******

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

RIGHT Rosemary .... slime your way out of these two questions, I'm sure the "Open Source Community" would like to see answers without your constant bloviating

1) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located "specifically" for Test #3 referenced in your "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus" ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf [attached file] ) that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??

2) Where is your publically available posted link with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located for "ANY" test using a 555 timer replacing the functions generator that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY operation ??

Hi Fuzzy

How's that 'class action' lawsuit coming on?  Do let us know.  I've told you where to present your papers.  And I know your address if you ever want a reply.

Rosie Pose

Rosemary you low life idiot slimeball .... again you change the subject because you cannot and never have made publically available posted links with the downloadable complete set thats all in one place of the LeCroy scope shots and all the accompanying data dump spreadsheet files, including the device schematic and any photographs located that was used for your conclusions and claim(s) of the COP>INFINITY device(s) operation.

You are a nothing but a toothless super troll giving information on devices you created that are "FRAUDULENT" having "NO" proof of their operation other than cherry picked data for a THESIS.