Rosemary:

I double-checked TK's reading of the scope capture and it appears to be right.  However, I can see a possibility for another interpretation.

What I am thinking is that the Q1 MOSFET is actually fully on, because the gate voltage appears to be at about +5 volts when it is high.  If that's true then the current would be about (62/(11 +2)) = 4.8 amps.  I am guessing 11 ohms for the load resistor from memory.  Perhaps you have a 10X probe on the current sensing channel, so the current would be not 320 milliamps, but instead 3.2 amps.  3.2 amps is close enough to 4.8 amps to suggest that Q1 may be fully on and I am on the right track.

So if that's the case then we get (3.2 amps x 62 volts) = about 200 watts of power being output by the batteries.

So, Rosie Posie, if I am right, then there is no big "victory" by you over TK.  Nor does it mean that your statement that TK can't do power analysis holds true either.

All that it means is that you couldn't give TK the courtesy of pointing out some mistakes that he made.  That's supposed to be part of the culture on the forums.  Your argument that all of us are clueless with respect to power analysis is totally false.

So if I am right, all that you have done here is bring shame upon yourself because you wouldn't offer TK the courtesy of pointing out his error.

Again, the big disclaimer here is that I am not sure myself because I forget the specifics of the NERD setup.

But again, if I am correct, then shame on you Rosemary Ainslie.  You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on May 09, 2012, 12:47:17 AM
Rosemary:

I double-checked TK's reading of the scope capture and it appears to be right.  However, I can see a possibility for another interpretation.

What I am thinking is that the Q1 MOSFET is actually fully on, because the gate voltage appears to be at about +5 volts when it is high.  If that's true then the current would be about (62/(11 +2)) = 4.8 amps.  I am guessing 11 ohms for the load resistor from memory.  Perhaps you have a 10X probe on the current sensing channel, so the current would be not 320 milliamps, but instead 3.2 amps.  3.2 amps is close enough to 4.8 amps to suggest that Q1 may be fully on and I am on the right track.

So if that's the case then we get (3.2 amps x 62 volts) = about 200 watts of power being output by the batteries.

So, Rosie Posie, if I am right, then there is no big "victory" by you over TK.  Nor does it mean that your statement that TK can't do power analysis holds true either.

All that it means is that you couldn't give TK the courtesy of pointing out some mistakes that he made.  That's supposed to be part of the culture on the forums.  Your argument that all of us are clueless with respect to power analysis is totally false.

So if I am right, all that you have done he is bring shame on yourself because you wouldn't offer TK the courtesy of pointing out his error.

Again, the big disclaimer here is that I am not sure myself because I forget the specifics of the NERD setup.

But again, if I am correct, then shame on you Rosemary Ainslie.  You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.

MileHigh

MH,

I do not know what 'scope shot you guys are discussing, but an IRFPG50 that is at room temp will pass about 1.750 amp with Vgs=5volts.  At 150degC, it will pass about 3 amps at that same Vgs=5volts.  Due to device to device variabilities, I would assign at least +/- 20% to those estimates.

Those numbers drop to 200ma at room temp and 1amp at 150degC if Vgs is reduced to 4.5volts.

You can see that there is a large difference in the on resistance of the IRFPG50 in just that .5volt variation of Vgs.

Which 'scope shot is being discussed?

PW

(Corrected 750ma to 1.75 amp in first sentence))

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 12:17:46 AM
My dear Leon,
I've said this before but will say it as often as required.  IF I needed support from anyone at all - I'd ASK for it.  I don't need it.  So.  I don't ask for it.  I prefer it that people know that it it only takes a really OLD lady (of the opposite ...lol) with nothing more than your average intellectual competence, to defeat the best efforts of your best dedicated anti over unity campaigners.  You, on the other hand, need all the assistance that you can manage.  Up to and including MrMean.  LOL.  And PhiChaser for that matter. 

The advantage to all this is that those members who are serious about research - will be heartened when they fully appreciate the level of your spin, the level of your tar brush applications - and the level of your competence related to power engineering and, for that matter - to physics.

Rosie Pose

They don't need my help, you can tar yourself just fine Rosemary.
In fact, every time you refuse to engage these guys on a technical level you tar yourself.
Every time you slander TK about his videos you tar yourself.

All anyone has to do is ask you to do a Dim Bulb Test and you slip slide away down Zipon Avenue and mutter about sauce.
And you again tar yourself...
If that doesn't work they can ask you about power calculations but you seem to have found the loophole there by 'putting the witness on trial' as PW put it.
And still you continue to tar yourself... 

You really do believe that you are right though, don't you?
After seeing all the evidence and data and discussion amassed here regarding negative power mean circuits that YOU STILL believe you're right and they are wrong?!?
That is some serious denial there.
Like EPIC denial.
Bigger than that river in Africa even... 
Don't go away though Rosie, we all like your company!
Always good to have a 'free thinker' in the group. 


Regards,
PC

This scope shot is being discussed. Full shot and then a blowup of the region in question.

I don't believe the mosfet is fully on.

The LeCroy autodetects probe attenuation if it is used with LeCroy probes, as it is, and is using the correct atten, I believe.

Quote from: MileHigh on May 09, 2012, 12:47:17 AM

But again, if I am correct, then shame on you Rosemary Ainslie.  You just keep on digging yourself deeper and deeper into the abyss.

MileHigh

No MileHigh.  You are not correct.  Not even close.  And NO.  I have no inclination to explain anything at all.  I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone reading here is aware of the error.  And frankly this discussion is again getting rather tedious.  I've still got to do that ruddy post relating to TK's video - which he laughing calls 'educational'.  And RIGHT now I've got chores to finish before I can even get back here.

Rosie Pose.