Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

you're a fool for assuming they would behave the same, more of a fool for the arguments you put forth in support of that assumption. you're a liar because you're now trying to confabulate a cover for your blatant error.

They behave the same, in that neither produces unusual behavior. They behave differently AS PREDICTED from inspection of the data sheet in parameters such as rise/fall time, gate capacitance, and heat dissipation due to internal resistance.
You are troll, and your behaviour proves it.
I've made no errors of the kind you imply. My major error was getting involved in this waste of time in the first place, and my most recent error is responding to your trolling disruption. But you came in at the right time--everyone else is leaving, since the free beer is all gone.

[WilbyInebriated]

They behave the same, in that neither produces unusual behavior. They behave differently AS PREDICTED from inspection of the data sheet in parameters such as rise/fall time, gate capacitance, and heat dissipation due to internal resistance.
You are troll, and your behaviour proves it.
I've made no errors of the kind you imply. My major error was getting involved in this waste of time in the first place, and my most recent error is responding to your trolling disruption. But you came in at the right time--everyone else is leaving, since the free beer is all gone.

i'll call your bluff, you lying fool. please show where you "predicted from inspection of..."
i have shown your post where you predicted something quite different, and there are more i can post as well. please show the post that supports your latest confabulation about this "prediction". hold on let me grab a chair this is going to be another classic.

by the way, it's behavior...  can't even spell correctly or use  the spell check, how amazingly analytical you are. such attention to detail.

[MileHigh]

Hey TK:

It will be interesting to see how this all ends.  I have a feeling we are going out on a whimper.  Aaron's MO is to only respond to one in ten issues that arrive from his statements and his clips.  For example, he took down the "proof of oscillation" video that was noting more than him looking at Moiré patterns and thinking he was looking at the MOSFET in oscillation.  He stated that he was going to have it double-checked or something at report back.  In fact he will never report back and conveniently forget it.  Another example that comes to mind is the two day period where he was convinced that avalanche breakdown was directly related to "oscillation" and he started issuing proclamations about this to the minions and even marked up his schematics.  I don't think that we will ever hear from Aaron about avalanche breakdown again, nor will any of the participants in the thread ever say anything about the lack of follow-up on the oscillation video or the avalanche breakdown issue.  Hence, this one will go out with a big whimper and nobody will say anything.

Almost no one on his web site seems to want to hold him accountable for this kind of stuff and nobody ever seems to question a "proclamation."  So .99's endgame scenario will probably come true and nobody on the Energetic Forum will have anything critical to say, the whole thing will just fade into obscurity.

Now we all know what they do to you in Singapore if you dare to spit your chewing gum out onto the sidewalk, can't forget that.

MileHigh

[forest]

I'm newbie in electronics so please bear with me  :
does MOSFET contain parasitic diode which has also leakage current value ? if so does it dissipate so called "back emf" to the power source causing spikes observed in replications.
Maybe original MOSFET had damaged internal diode  ?

Second thought : if all MOSFETS from the same model are really exact and stick to data sheet then why millitary equipment uses own restricted models ?
Isn't that because FET's are noisy devices compared to old vacuum tubes and cannot make an effect ? Resonance is not the only requirement if you read Tesla.

[Asymatrix]

because this is tk's little singing and dancing bear show. we are critiquing his hack of a replication and lack of proper scientific method...

why don't you?

I'm not spending my time complaining about scientific method, you are. With all of the BS you spew, you could have done the experiments 100x times by now.

And don't think we don't all know that if it wasn't a MOSFET you found to complain about, it would absolutely be something else. Kindly tell us how in the world a slight difference in a MOSFET could ever produce OU.