Testing the TK Tar Baby

[fuzzytomcat]

Not quite, but almost.

The C or movable contact of the relay is connected to the 33 uf Cap, and the NC contact is connected to the charging trimpot. In other words, you have the head of the arrow on the wrong end of the line.

Sorry I'm such a lousy sketcher.

Have another cup of coffee, on me.

It's not so bad .... just confused me for a second ..... maybe longer 

[TinselKoala]

You got it now.

Just to be clear, in the picture, there is no connection of the red wire from the CHG trimpot directly to the green Gate wire that winds around the top of the relay. It's just an illusion of perspective; the green gate wire is well below the red wire connected to the NC relay contact up top.

[TinselKoala]

Wow, so she is now saying that these circuits are not correct? Circuits that she has argued on her behalf?  This just gets weird.

Mags

Like fishing for eels with a coarse net, Magsy.

It is impossible for her to say, " I knew about the Q1-Q2 difference on xx date" and prove it. The only proof we have is that she DID know about it after April 19th.

[picowatt]

And yet another quote of hers taken from "over there":

"I am not altogether sure that picowatt has proved anything at all.  He's alleged that our MOSFET's are BLOWN.  We PROVE that they're not.  Our little TK's argument DEPENDS on pure ALLEGATION.  Which at best is irrelevant.  Certainly it's a contemptible practice when it's applied to SCIENCE."

You PROVE nothing.  This is not an allegation.  It is an obvious fact.  Something is amiss with Q1 in FIG3 and FIG7.

In FIG 3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the FG channel is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on.  However, during that same portion of the cycle, no significant current flow is indicated by the CSR trace as one would expect if Q1 were turned on.

This can only mean that Q1 is defective, is disconnected, or is not connected as per the provided schematic.

As well, in FIG 7, during the same positive portion of the FG cycle, sufficient gate drive is indicated to turn on Q1, and again, no expected current flow is observed at the CSR.

In FIG 5, only +5 volts or so is being applied to the gate of Q1, yet, as one would expect, there is substantial current flow indicated by the CSR.  All is just as would be expected if Q1 is functioning and connected as per the schematic.

So why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7? 

Defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic, those are the ONLY possible explanations as to why no expected current flow thru Q1 is observed in FIG3 and FIG7.

The reader must choose which possibility is most likely, as the author of the paper refuses to even acknowledge the issue, let alone respond intelligently to it.  To date she refuses to even accept the gate voltage reading provided by her own 'scope.

[TinselKoala]

Heh... I see that I have a 10V tantalum in Manny instead of a 25V.

That's because I like to live dangerously. Anyone else should use a 25 volt tantalum here, just in case.