PW:

This gentleman repairs old radios from the 1920s and 30s.  He also does some basic educational clips about electronics.  You might really enjoy his clips:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio

MileHigh

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 07, 2012, 12:09:16 AM
Not actually picowatt.  That's your latest much needed qualification.  And you're still wrong.  Self evidently.  And we will PROVE this.  It's a very easy test
And here your sense is lost in all that 'hand waving'.  IF the function generator is NOT functioning - as you put it - then NOR does it function in TK's Tar Baby REPLICATION.  Which both he and we can manage without even using the function generator.  Explain THAT if you dare. 
NOT actually.  When the negative voltage is applied to Q1 - then the positive is applied to Q2 - WHICH WE WILL DEMONSTRATE.  And the battery supply can be negative 72 volts.  Therefore is it NOT 'more negative than the batt negative'. 
Then you will need to argue how we read a negative voltage that varies between 4 amps and upwards.  And how it is that Poynty cannot simulate the oscillation with 50 Ohms resistance from the function generator.  Among many OTHER glaring contradictions to this 'argument' - if such it is?

Rosie Posie

Well then, what's the beef?

Although your circuit and TK's are connected similarly as in the first paper's schematic, both utilizing essentially similar components, both producing esentially similar oscillations and waveshapes, and both capable of producing a negative mean power measurement, obviously the similarity ends there.

TK's circuit operates as one would expect based on standard electronic theory and demonstrates measurements that are predicted, simulated, and empirically confirmed.  Yours apparently, must operate based on anything but standard electronics.

TK's Q2 can only be turned on by making the source of Q2 more negative than the batt- and then readily demonstrates the bias current flowing thru the FG necessary to bias Q2 into linear operation.  Your circuit must use a magical function generator wherein this does not occur and Q2 forms an oscillator without a required bias path to the batt-.

TK's Q1 always turns on if a positive voltage is applied to its gate, and current flow is noted at the CSR when Q1 is turned on.  TK would have to disconnect Q1 or damage it for there to be a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and not have current flow indicated at the CSR.  In your circuit, Q1 does not necessarily have to turn on when a positive voltage is applied to its gate, possibly it is dependent on moon phase.

So, with all these critical differences between your two circuits, I do not understand why you waste your time here discusing TK's circuit.  His apparently follows standard theory, and yours apparently does not.

PW

Quote from: MileHigh on May 07, 2012, 12:27:39 AM
PW:

This gentleman repairs old radios from the 1920s and 30s.  He also does some basic educational clips about electronics.  You might really enjoy his clips:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AllAmericanFiveRadio

MileHigh

MH,

Some of those old radios look more familiar than I care to admit!  I am indeed gettin' old.

I took a kid to a flea market a few years back and he saw an old upright console radio.  He was looking at the back of it and asked me what all the light bulbs were for.  I thought someone possibly converted it to an ornamental piece and put light bulbs in the back, but when I walked over and looked I had to laugh, they were the radio's tubes, which he had never seen before.  That was good for an hour's discussion.

PW

Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
TK's circuit operates as one would expect based on standard electronic theory and demonstrates measurements that are predicted, simulated, and empirically confirmed.  Yours apparently, must operate based on anything but standard electronics.

WHAT is standard about a measured negative wattage?  I have not seen this question addressed anywhere at all - certainly NOT by mainstream.  That TK manages a negative wattage with the ease at which we do - simply endorses that claim.

Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AMTK's Q2 can only be turned on by making the source of Q2 more negative than the batt - and then readily demonstrates the bias current flowing thru the FG necessary to bias Q2 into linear operation. Your circuit must use a magical function generator wherein this does not occur and Q2 forms an oscillator without a required bias path to the batt-.

Not actually.  TK demonstrates that the 'bias current'... at the source leg of Q2 is LESS negative than the battery negative - is the first OBVIOUS error.  But you're right.  So does ours.  The negative at the source leg is INVARIABLY less than the negative at the supply source.  Which makes this argument absurdly inappropriate. And guys, for those of you who read here - NOTA BENE.  The ONLY way that the source at Q2 COULD be construed as being less than the battery supply is if that battery supply was disconnected.

Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AMTK's Q1 always turns on if a positive voltage is applied to its gate, and current flow is noted at the CSR when Q1 is turned on.  TK would have to disconnect Q1 or damage it for there to be a positive voltage at the gate of Q1 and not have current flow indicated at the CSR.  In your circuit, Q1 does not necessarily have to turn on when a positive voltage is applied to its gate, possibly it is dependent on moon phase.

Not the phase of the moon so much picowatt.  But that's an interesting proposal.  Our findings are precisely in line with the evidence.  When Q1 is positive - then Q2 is negative.  And when Q1 is negative - then Q2 is positive.  You seem to think that this is impossible.  Strangely.  But you are, as ever, entitled to your 'beliefs'.  We - on the other hand - deal with the evidence.

Quote from: picowatt on May 07, 2012, 12:37:52 AMSo, with all these critical differences between your two circuits, I do not understand why you waste your time here discusing TK's circuit.  His apparently follows standard theory, and yours apparently does not.

I am not interested in TK's circuit.  I am only interested in denying TK's allegations as they relate to OUR circuit.

Rosie Pose

I think it's pretty funny that I can be put down for not using the "right" mosfets in the beginning.... and then when I clearly show that the negative power product can be obtained with IRF830s too.... then suddenly "any mosfet" that has a "diode" will do and Ainslie claims that she has never claimed that the PG50 is actually necessary.

How do you like them apples, PW? You could have just grabbed some random mosfets out of your bench stock, even 540s would work. No need to pay exorbitant Chinese prices for magic mosfets or wait for that slow boat to pull up to the dock in Kansas City.

How many pages of Ainslie-piles have we had this time, since Stefan asked her AGAIN to put up or shut up? How many insulting, lying posts without any hint of proof of her claims? How many idiotic misquotes and misinterpretations of the posts of others? How many refusals to correct her errors? Pages and pages, I've lost count.

And now we have her continuing to claim that a positive 12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 won't turn it on, or somehow does turn it on but its current bypasses the CVR so it doesn't show up.

This is actually clear evidence that she can't interpret her own scope traces, much less mine with no numbers in boxes. She doesn't even acknowledge the issue: why is there no current shown on those particular scopeshots, when there clearly IS in others with the same gate drive voltage? Just like the math errors she's made and refuses to correct... she does not even understand how wrong she is or just where the error lies.