Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 22, 2012, 04:45:37 AM
LOL  That's a comfort Polinater.  I was hoping I could convince you.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

There's nothing to convince me of, and no point in trying.

There's an easy way to determine how widespread Rosemarie's view of TK's power analysis actually is:


http://www.overunity.com/12380/paging-rosemarie-ainslies-nerd-team/new/#new

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 14, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
MilesAsEverOffCentre

Poor Rosie had to point out that the READING that PW was making was based on the DC coupled value.  He concluded that the the LeCroy had bombed or the MOSFET had blown.  He was wrong on both counts.

I've sent you a PM MileHigh.  You need to do some rather elementary corrections to one of your posts.  It'll spare you some embarrassment. 

Rosie Pose

So many pages over the past 12 days or so and I see very little has changed. 

"Poor Rosie",

I see you continue to misquote and misdirect.  I never said the LeCroy "had bombed", whatever you mean by that.  I do stand by my contention that Q1 is either defective or disconnected in the FIG 3 capture as no current flow is indicated when there sholud be.

In your FIG 3 of the first paper, during the portion of the cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the CH 3 trace shows +12 volts or so being applied to the gate of Q1.  During that same period of time, the CH 1 trace indicates little or no current flow.

Assuming that the schematic in the first paper is correct, the lack of indicated current flow can only mean that Q1 is defective or has somehow become disconnected from the circuit.

You argued that the 'scope shot was not being read correctly and that the offset numbers or AC/DC coupling was somehow involved and that these needed to be factored in when determining the Q1 gate drive level.  I believe you countered with something like 6 volts was only being applied to the Q1 gate.  Even that amount of voltage at the Q1 gate should have turned on Q1 while the CSR trace indicates it is not turned on.

During my attempts to teach you how to read your own 'scope captures, I stated that the offest numbers on the LeCroy (the OFS numbers), merely indicate the distance a trace has been positioned from the center of the graticule.  The OFS numbers have nothing to do with the +12volts indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  As for the AC/DC coupling issue, the captures use DC coupling precicely as one should for these captures.

You continued to dispute my assertions regarding how to read/use your 'scope (as well as .99's), so I called LeCroy tech support in New York and they too confirmed that the OFS numbers merely indicate the distance the zero ref line of a trace has been positioned from the center of the graticule and have no bearing on measurements read off the screen.  A brief discussion describing the 'scope settings and waveforms depicted in the FIG 3 capture confirm that +12 is being applied to the gate of Q1.  Feel free to call them and confirm this.

Assuming you will take the word of the people who actually built your 'scope, then indeed there is +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and yet little or no current flow is indicated.

How else can this be explained other than a defective Q1 or that Q1 has somehow lost a connection during that capture?  These are the only two possibilities that I can think of. 

Feel free to provide an alternate explanation if you have one, but please do stop putting your words in my mouth.

PW

This I was receiving today:


Good day Mr Hartman.

The above matter refers and we confirm that we act on behalf of Ms Rosemary Ainslie herein.

We have been instructed by our client that your forum, www.overunity.com continues to denigrate our client’s good name and impugn the work of her associates on the ‘TK’s Tar Baby’ Thread.

Furthermore, we have been instructed that members of the forum, including Phichaser, TinselKoala, FuzzyTomCat, Mrsean, picowatt, and MileHigh and evolvingape are in breach of forum guidelines through insults and allegations made to our client.

As a result, we have been instructed by our client that you provide us with the email and IP addresses, of the above members, in order for us to take the necessary steps.

Furthermore, we have therefore been instructed, as we hereby do, to request that you immediately lock the thread to prevent any future abuse.

We trust your actions will be guided accordingly.

Kind Regards

N. H.

M. T. Attorneys


======================

P.S. I deleted the Attorney name and her adress

TK,

I see over the past 50 pages or so that there are a few additional 'scope captures to look at.  I also particularly like the melted battery clip!

You have questioned some of the relatively slow ramp shaped waveforms when the FG is switching in some of the 'scope captures.  These ramp like waveforms may be explained by a faulty Rgen=50R in the FG.  If experiments got out of control sufficiently to melt the clip in the photo, than it is not unrealistic to suspect that as much as 72 volts may have been applied to the FG terminals during a MOSFET failure.  Applying 60-72 volts to the FG terminal from a Q2 DS short or a Q1 DG short for only a short period of time will likely stress the Rgen=50R resistor.  If Ren were a wirewound it would likely fuse open, but, as a non-inductive resistor would be preferred in this usage, likely a carbon or MOX resistor was used.  These types tend to go high in resistance when stressed.  So, if Rgen were much increased from 50R, it could explain the increased transition times.

In other words, maybe some of the smoke escaped from Rgen.

PW