Testing the TK Tar Baby

[MileHigh]

All:

Here is an example of why it is hopeless:

PW:

Thanks for reminding me that the voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] is clamped at the Q2 body diode
forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage.  Forgetfulness comes with age!

Rosemary's response:

<<< As seemingly does excessive obfuscation of reference come with age.  This sentence makes no sense at all - not even in the 'so called' 'professional speak' that picowatt indulges.  I think what he's trying to say is that IF there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q1 and a positive at the Gate of Q1...? Maybe? Or perhaps - when there's a positive signal at the Gate of Q2 and a negative signal at the Gate of Q1...?  Can't actually tell.  God alone knows.  Perhaps he's just reserving both options.  And as for the 'forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage?  WHAT?  WHICH MOSFET?  Q1?  Q2? WHAT 'DRAIN' VOLTAGE?  The MOSFET legs?  The CIRCUIT?  God help us.  This is the kind of nonsense that impresses no-one but the trolls.  WHY can they not simply speak clearly.  It's widely held to be a desirable practice.  Clarity of expression. Never hurt anyone.  And most especially desirable in a discussion of science.  And the reasons for all this abusive, undefined reference and terminology that are as obscure as night - are quite simply the result of their 'ruminations' - as relevant as are cows in a green meadow - while they 'spin' the colours of the emperor's new cloak.  And while they make absolutely no kind of sense in any context at all.  What idiocy!  >>>

It's hopeless.

Rosemary, what PW stated is perfectly comprehensible and makes perfect sense.  If over the years you had tried to pick up on electronics jargon you would understand exactly what he said.  Instead, it's clear that your ability to learn is very limited and beyond a superficial level of understanding about electronics you are hopeless - totally opaque.

If we put aside the fact that you are totally incapable of learning beyond a certain limited point, you make a complete and total ass of yourself in the quote above.  I know that you are not capable of understanding this but your comments are jaw-dropping.  You can't understand how deep and wide the disconnect is between yourself and the actual operation of your circuit.

It's hopeless.

MileHigh

[WilbyInebriated]

It's hopeless.


It's hopeless.

MileHigh

and yet you are still here... so what does that say about you?

[MileHigh]

What does this say about you?   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello MileHigh

I seriously miss your contributions on our own thread. 

Are you asking me?  In this post?

What does this say about you?   

Or are you addressing the wider readership here?  Frankly my own opinion is that you've taken a photograph of picowatt.  And I'm not sure he would like that.  He prefers to keep his identity under wraps.  God forbid that we'd recognise him in the streets as a result of this intervention.  I'd be inclined to zap a restraining order on him and then call the cops.  Better still... The FBI.

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

More BS...



"Quote from: picowatt on Today at 05:43:22

    Thanks for reminding me that the voltage applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2] is clamped at the Q2 body diode
    forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage.  Forgetfulness comes with age!

As seemingly does excessive obfuscation of reference come with age.  This sentence makes no sense at all - not even in the 'so called' 'professional speak' that picowatt indulges.  I think what he's trying to say is that IF there's a negative signal at the Gate of Q1 and a positive at the Gate of Q1...? Maybe? Or perhaps - when there's a positive signal at the Gate of Q2 and a negative signal at the Gate of Q1...?  Can't actually tell.  God alone knows.  Perhaps he's just reserving both options.  And as for the 'forward voltage above the MOSFET drain voltage?  WHAT?  WHICH MOSFET?  Q1?  Q2? WHAT 'DRAIN' VOLTAGE?  The MOSFET legs?  The CIRCUIT?  God help us.  This is the kind of nonsense that impresses no-one but the trolls.  WHY can they not simply speak clearly.  It's widely held to be a desirable practice.  Clarity of expression. Never hurt anyone.  And most especially desirable in a discussion of science.  And the reasons for all this abusive, undefined reference and terminology that are as obscure as night - are quite simply the result of their 'ruminations' - as relevant as are cows in a green meadow - while they 'spin' the colours of the emperor's new cloak.  And while they make absolutely no kind of sense in any context at all.  What idiocy!"




In this post you demonstrate that you cannot understand what was being discussed and that you do not even know how to read your own schematic.  I was responding to .99, I would have typed more slowly for you.

When you say "I think what he is trying to say", you should have stopped right there.  READ MORE SLOWLY, ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND!!!  Your "interpretation" of what was being discussed is so far out in left field that it brings into question your ability to even read.

The [gate of Q1/source of Q2] was written that way because they are electrically the same point.  You do understand that a black line on a schematic denotes a wire don't you??

Most of the discussion you reference was with regard to when a positive voltage is applied to the [gate of Q1/source of Q2].  From your own schematic, which you apparently cannot read, when the FG applies a positive voltage to the gate of Q1, that same positive voltage is also applied to the source of Q2.  The gate of Q1 and source of Q2 are CONNECTED.  Either you are looking at yet another schematic, or you can't even read or understand the one you "published".  Which is it?

And for certain, if Q1 is functioning and connected as per your schematic, when it is fully on, the drain voltage will indeed drop to the voltages I stated.  Which drain you ask?  BOTH!!!  They are CONNECTED in YOUR schematic.  Asking which drain only demonstrates your complete lack of skills in this field.  You would think you could have learned to read YOUR OWN schematic by now.  Apparently you cannot, yet YOU feel more qualified to discuss the circuit than just about anyone else.  Really, who is the "joke" around here?

I would suggest you spend more time trying to understand what others write before you fly off the handle with non-sensical responses that only demonstrae your limited ability to read and understand.

The rest of your responses/posts are total gibberish, as again, you are unable to grasp what was even being discussed.

You throw away every opportunity to actually learn something and instead choose to ridicule and denigrate anyone whose technical skills exceed your own, which is a very large group.  And whose fault is that?  Remain ignorant, if that is what you wish.  You are only fooling yourself.



If you want to post something "over there", try this:

In FIG 3, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on.  Yet, the CSR trace, during  this same period, does not indicate the current flow one would expect if Q1 were turned fully on.

As well, FIG7 also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again no current flow is observed.

In FIG5 (made the month prior), during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approx. +5 volts is indicated as gate drive to Q1, and as is expected, current flow is observed via the CSR trace.

Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?  During those captures, Q1 must have been malfunctioning, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. 


And you say I am a joke...