Groundloop

Quote from: Groundloop on May 13, 2012, 12:49:07 AM
@All,

Here is my BIAS current test so far:

TEST OF BIAS CURRENT

Input Power Supply was adjusted to 24.00 Volt and measured to 24.00 Volt.
The BIAS power supply was measured to 13.74 Volt.

Simulating the function generator positive pulse:

With positive BIAS the current through the circuit was 1.74 Ampere.

The BIAS current measured through the moving Iron ampere meter was
barly visible on the 1 ampere scale. I estimate approx. 0,05 Ampere.
Digital multimeter did show 0,09 Ampere BIAS current.

Simulating the function generator negative pulse:

With negative BIAS the current through the circuit was 0.17 Ampere.

The BIAS current measured through the moving Iron ampere meter was
on the 1 ampere scale approx. 0,19 Ampere.

CONCLUSION

With a positive function generator pulse simulation the BIAS current
was very small, approx. 0,05 ampere at 13.74 Volt. Gives 0,687 Watt.

The input current was very high at 1.74 ampere at 24 Volt. Gives 41,76 Watt.

With a negative function generator pulse simulation the BIAS current
was a little higher, approx. 0,19 ampere at 13.74 Volt. Gives 2,6106 Watt.

The input current was very low at 0.17 ampere at 24 Volt. Gives 4,08 Watt.

With a negative function generator pulse simulation then the circuit did
oscillate at 1.050 MHz. And the AC oscillation o-scoped at the MOSFET drains was 96 Vpp.

GL.

I'm not entirely sure where all this is leading Groundloop - but with the caveat that your amps are a correct reading - then frankly - I'd support any of your findings.  But that's only because I'm entirely satisfied that you're skills related to switched circuits are unparalleled. 

By the way - my confusions were related to your Q1 Q2 references.  But since we ourselves initially misrepresented this  - then your own representation is more than justified.  And I'm still not sure where your current reading was taken.  But I'm assuming directly on the bias INPUT. 

Rosie

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 03:46:26 AM
And as for this?  I am under NO obligation to answer any question that you put to me.  EVER. If you want co-operation TK - then apologise PROFUSELY for your legal transgressions.  And then follow this up with an attitude of professional respect.  LOL.  Then I'll give you LOT's (sic) of attention. 
Rosie Posie

You are indeed under an obligation whether you acknowledge it or not. Open source research, remember? Overunity prize.. oh that's right you've withdrawn your prize claims and in fact ALL your claims, haven't you. So.. .what are you even doing here?

You are actively trying to suppress and censor ME.
And I have actually requested that YOU NOT BE BANNED from this site, because I WANT YOU TO TEST YOUR CLAIMS.

However you have a mission, it appears, to suppress the real truth about you and your claims and your inane statements.

Whether or not I put the "date" on my quotations does not change the fact that they are YOUR OWN WORDS and if they contain errors, which they all do, the errors are YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT. And if I should uncover your lies and contradictions and post those references without dates, anyone can still find them.

Anyone who cares can find the original posts very easily, if you haven't tossed them down the Memory Hole.

Observe.


Get the picture? You can't bury anything if you EVER put it on the internet.

Rosemary,

The following is a very good 3 minute explanation of Work, Power, and Energy, and it affirms the fact that "W" represents "Work" in that P_AVG equation:

http://youtu.be/pDK2p1QbPKQ

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 13, 2012, 01:06:41 AM
It IS laughable.  You do well to laugh there TK.  And laugh and laugh and laugh - as you put it.  It is my opinion that you are trying very hard to make fools of us all with your videos.  They're a parody of science.  And, indeed a parody of any kind of filming effort.  In fact, it is my opinion that they're the most absurd piece of visual misrepresentation that has ever been managed by anyone at all on the entire internet with the added qualification that this is determined within the  limited scope of my knowledge of all those videos.  They are a priceless sample of 'how not do do things'.  And yet they are hugely diverting - in every sense of the word.

Rosie Pose

No, Polly Parrot. You are the only one being made a fool of by my videos. Just you. Because most of my videos lately have been direct, repeatable by anyone, comprehensive and irrefutable REFUTATIONS of claims that you have made, like the various inanities you spew about function generators. However, you yourself are unqualified to evaluate my videos... because you haven't even watched most of them and apparently you don't have the attention span or the prerequisite knowledge to follow them, even though I have lowered the pitch level from 10th grade to 8th grade, since you have no algebra at all.



By the way.... what is the function generator you used in the experiments described in the papers?

@Groundloop:
Good work, especially the confirmation of the RF radiation. Tar Baby of course howls in RF.
But Ainslie claims none.... we shall see, if she ever allows real testing.

The data sheet I have for the IRFPG50 says the Rdss is 2.0 Ohms, but that is using a 10 volt gate drive. How do you account for your 1.6 Ohm measurement here? Is it due to the 12 volt gate drive?

I also have questions about the bias current measured during the "on" or gate HI signal. Theoretically it should be quite low. I don't remember if I've checked that on Tar Baby or not. But... I will do so as soon as I'm able to, later today.

Data sheet attached.