This is the real abuse you fool:

QuoteJust a small note here to Poynty Point.  I don't think you've allowed for impedance.  But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it.  And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.

Now WAKE UP and start acting like a decent human being.

Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:14:54 PM
This is the real abuse you fool:

Now WAKE UP and start acting like a decent human being.

Guys,

YET MORE CALUMNY.  This is unstoppable.

Again,
Rosemary

QuoteYET MORE CALUMNY.  This is unstoppable.

Bullshit - I quoted your own words.

It's time for you to start acting like a decent human being.  If you can't do that then you are in the gutter.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 09:05:58 PM
My main point in this has to do with the amount of power that the circuit must handle, for how long it must handle it, and where that power must be dissipated.  During the HI time, there is 5 amperes of current flowing in a mosfet that has 2 ohms RDss and that is sitting on a bit of heatsink about the size of a matchbox. And this HIGH time is nearly half the total time.
During the LO time, do the oscillations actively cool the Q1 mosfet, you know, the one that they aren't happening in?  I don't think so. So the Q1 mosfet itself is dissipating an average power of nearly 25 Watts (5 x 5 x 2 x .45) for the duration of the experiment. Isn't it? Have you ever grabbed onto a 25 watt light bulb that was on for a while?

I have no qualms with what the MOSFETs may be dissipating, I'm simply saying that the indications are that roughly 50W of average power is being delivered by the batteries in that shot. And yes, 50W will do some decent heating.

And MileHigh - while I realise that you DEPEND on misdirection in your carefully edited references, may I remind both you and any readers here about my actual post - IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THAT is the WHOLE of the appropriate reference.  And the scheduled points 1 through 4 is the REQUIRED PROOF that TK's conclusions are erroneous - whether or not this is deliberate.

Quote from: MileHigh on May 16, 2012, 09:14:54 PM
This is the real abuse you fool:
Now WAKE UP and start acting like a decent human being.

Guys,

Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.
Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:
73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W

Just a small note here to Poynty Point.  I don't think you've allowed for impedance.  But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it.  And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.
1
It was considered advisable to test the settings to the limit of the transistor's voltage tolerance - required to explore whether the circuit could operate in booster converter mode.  That included #235 and then the same settings but at a higher applied frequency captured in screenshot numbers #236 #237 #238.  Further tests related to this operational mode continued.  Way past this test number.  We did not get close to the voltage tolerances on this test as the IRFPG50 has a voltage tolerance at upwards of 1000 volts.  We did NOT test its amperage tolerance as the MOSFETs functionality DID NOT DEGRADE.
2
The anomaly related to tests 354 and 355 - that related to the 'water to boil' test - required NO extreme transients - and a small but critical off set adjustment.  As in the previous booster converter tests - the benefits here were also manifestly greater at a higher frequency.
3
The rampant confusions being spun by TK - Sean - FTC - in these latest 'post contributions' relate to the amount of energy delivered against the amount of energy dissipated.  It is somewhat  absurd to doubt the voltage measurements determined by the LeCroy.  It is well able to compute these waveforms which are within its bandwidth capacity.  No amount of 'eyeballing' is likely to exceed the accuracy that is guaranteed by that instrument - within, obviously, it's known margins of error.  At these frequencies that error margin is that negligible as to be discounted in its entirety.  The amount of energy dissipated FAR exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply.  Integrated power analysis is in line with the negative wattage which is indicated by the product of the voltages shown in the math trace.  The signature heat values recorded exceed the wattage measured to have been delivered by that supply source the more so as all such detailed analysis of the wattage delivered results in a negative wattage.
4
This latest rather reckless attempt at misrepresentation of our work by TK, Sean and FTC is again an example of their propensity to indulge in slander which most certainly is actionable.  We who have worked on this project for many years now - will deal with this aspect of their multiple acts of legal abuse - as required.

Regards,
Rosemary