Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 08:36:57 PM
Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying before dragging out words like "ridiculous".

Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?

And WHY do you keep asking this?  We've covered this point.  EXHAUSTIVELY.  In your early posts on my locked thread.  Is there some need to keep referencing this?  Is it the required 'spin'?  I think we're all rather tired of it.  With or without respect.

Rosie Pose

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:43:03 PM
And WHY do you keep asking this?  We've covered this point.  EXHAUSTIVELY.  In your early posts on my locked thread.  Is there some need to keep referencing this?  Is it the required 'spin'?  I think we're all rather tired of it.  With or without respect.

Rosie Pose

You have never covered this point.  You only wanted to argue that I was not reading the 'scope correctly (remember the BS about the offset numbers and .99's annotated 'scope shot?).

I have confirmed that I am indeed reading the 'scope correctly with LeCroy in New York.  During the positive voltage portion of the FG duty cycle, approx +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient to turn Q1 fully on.  The CSR trace does not indicate any current flow during this time period as would be expected if Q1 were turning on.

So, again, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?

My dear picowatt,

When we finally get to run our tests then I anticipate the HUGE gratification that I will get in showing you that setting on a video that there is NOTHING compromised in our MOSFETS as you're trying hard to 'spin' and that the voltage reading across the switch when coupled to AC - does NOT show the same reading.

We most certainly HAVE covered this point.  You are now simply trying rather desperately to take the focus off your ABSURD protocol suggestions.  I think we're here discussing APPLIED TESTING PROTOCOLS to the battery draw down tests.

All that ego.  God help us.

Rosie Pose

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:55:55 PM
My dear picowatt,

When we finally get to run our tests then I anticipate the HUGE gratification that I will get in showing you that setting on a video that there is NOTHING compromised in our MOSFETS as you're trying hard to 'spin' and that the voltage reading across the switch when coupled to AC - does NOT show the same reading.

We most certainly HAVE covered this point.  You are now simply trying rather desperately to take the focus off your ABSURD protocol suggestions.  I think we're here discussing APPLIED TESTING PROTOCOLS to the battery draw down tests.

All that ego.  God help us.

Rosie Pose

You have never answered the question or "covered" this point.  You have only deflected it.  It has nothing to do with AC coupling, and if you use AC coupling in your upcoming tests, your 'scope captures will be all but meaningless.

Fax FIG 3 to LeCroy.  Ask them what the indicated FG voltage is during the positive portion of the FG cycle.  They will tell you it is approximately +12 volts.  Surely you and everyone else will agree that this amount of gate drive should be turning Q1 fully on.  Yet, the CSR trace shows no current flow as would be anticipated from Q1 being turned fully on.

So, again, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG 3?   

 

so - Poynty Point,

I think that's about the most you'll get by way of comment.  Is that enough?  I think we're both more than capable of discussing this without the gratuitous irrelevancies that picowatt and TK need. 

Let me know.  I'm waiting patiently at a far nicer forum than this.  If you're up for it - we'd be delighted to discuss things with you.  And the same to Groundloop.  Frankly I'd also be delighted to include those circuit variants you've designed - into a thread for further discussion.  We've built that circuit BTW.  But I've not yet tested it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie