Quote from: Magluvin on June 24, 2012, 04:26:55 AM
Well Rose, here it is....

Pico has a very good point when it comes to that question he has been putting to you for some time now. I even understand what he is talking about but you never ever give a straight answer.  Until you clearly clear that up, Im with pico on that. I know you think we are all just meat with eyes when it comes to this stuff. Thats a shame. So I suppose that the only one in the world that has the correct answers is you. Well then that means that you will disagree with everyone. So far, that is what is presented.

Then more's the pity Magsy if you buy into his nonsense.  Every channel on the LeCroy has two optional settings.  AC or DC.  We're testing the voltage across the battery.  We know it can only discharge a DC current.  Therefore we set the channel to DC.  As we're measuring the DC current as our reference from the energy to and from the battery - then we also set the channel on the shunt to DC.  NOW.  WHAT to do with the setting at the function generator?  Does that put out an AC voltage?  Or a DC voltage?  What we did was set it to DC by default.  It should have been set to AC.

Now.  What difference does this make?  The voltage shape is what it is.  That is always the same.  The only DIFFERENCE in the coupling is where the zero reference goes.  It drifts upwards for AC and sits approximately midway between the voltage levels.  On DC it simply and accurately accounts for the zero crossing.

IF you understood picowatt - then WHAT did you understand?  That there's no optional coupling?  Or that the coupling makes no difference to the zero crossing point?  Both are wrong.  And he's relying on both these IMPLICATIONS to convince you that there's 12 volts at the gate.  HAD we applied the correct AC coupling - then the voltage reading would NOT have been 12 volts.  It would have been nearer 6.  He knows this.  You clearly DON'T.  He's relying on your stupidity.  Frankly if I were you I'd feel insulted.  The ONLY thing that is correct in that waveform is its shape.  This  point is one of many that are scheduled for a 10 minute video to show this in full.  And when that's been aired I'd expect an apology for picowatt.  FINALLY. 

Rosemary
Added

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:44:57 AM
Then more's the pity Magsy if you buy into his nonsense.  Every channel on the LeCroy has two optional settings.  AC or DC.  We're testing the voltage across the battery.  We know it can only discharge a DC current.  Therefore we set the channel to DC.  As we're measuring the DC current as our reference from the energy to and from the battery - then we also set the channel on the shunt to DC.  NOW.  WHAT to do with the setting at the function generator?  Does that put out an AC voltage?  Or a DC voltage?  What we did was set it to DC by default.  It should have been set to AC.

Now.  What difference does this make?  The voltage shape is what it is.  That is always the same.  The only DIFFERENCE in the coupling is where the zero reference goes.  It drifts upwards for AC and sits approximately midway between the voltage levels.  On DC it simply and accurately accounts for the zero crossing.

IF you understood picowatt - then WHAT did you understand?  That there's no optional coupling?  Or that the coupling makes no difference to the zero crossing point?  Both are wrong.  And he's relying on both these IMPLICATIONS to convince you that there's 12 volts at the gate.  HAD we applied the correct AC coupling - then the voltage reading would NOT have been 12 volts.  It would have been nearer 6.  He knows this.  You clearly DON'T.  He's relying on your stupidity.  Frankly if I were you I'd feel insulted.  The ONLY thing that is correct in that waveform is its shape. 

Rosemary

Again, you are wrong.  Yes, if set to AC coupling, the trace would have drifted until the area of the waveform above and below the zero line were equal.  But you have now destroyed all the available absolute and DC voltage data.

On your battery trace, you can read the absolute voltage of both the DC component and the AC of the oscillation riding thereon.  If you were to set the battery trace to AC, you would destroy all the DC data and only be able to read the peak to peak of the AC portion of the oscillations on the battery waveform, but you would be unable to read the absolute voltage of any portion of the battery trace.  You would, for example, be unable to determine if the AC voltage dropped close to or below zero volts, because you no longer know where zero volts is.  In AC coupling the trace will drift until the area above and below the zero line are equal, so you now have no idea where zero truly is.

The same goes for the FG trace.  If you set it to AC coupling, you destrroy all DC and absolute voltage.  You would only be able to read the peak to peak of the FG output.  You would not be able to determine any absolute voltage. (yes you could do RMS measurements etc, but no absolute voltage measurements)

Again, DC coupling is correct, your AC coupling argument is a wash.  Just as you should attempt to understand how FG's can sink, source, and pass current, you should learn a bit more about 'scopes. 

But, even if the applied gate drive is 6 volts as you say (although +12 is correct), 6 volts should still turn on Q1.

So why is Q1 not turning on? 

And guys what really troubles me is this.  Picowatt knows that there are really sophisticated readers here.  He also knows that those guys KNOW what I've just taken to trouble to explain.  Why then does he keep harping on this point?  Is he ONLY hoping to confuse the hell out of Magsy and those who really don't know these instruments?  And surely?  He knows this is all going to be tested under really stringent laboratory conditions.  He can't get away with this spin.  Yet he persists? 

I'm almost inclined to think that he believes it himself.  And then the confusion is compounded.  Because he then wrote to LeCroy - I beieve - to ask them if that waveform was correct.  No expert at LeCroy would even COMMENT without knowing what was being measured.  And if any of them were advised that it represented a square voltage measurement from a function generator then they most certainly would NOT have endorsed a DC coupling.  So.  I think, since he claims to have written to LeCroy he should then publish their answer.  Because frankly I don't even believe that he wrote to them.  Or if he did he did not apply the question in context.

But what is even more troubling is that he gets away with this spin.  Look how ENTIRELY Magsy 'bought in'.  He didn't even explain the point.  He just CLAIMED that it was INDEED a DC voltage.  And we ALL of us know that the signal from the function generator is NOT DC.  Is it really that easy to fool the general public?  It's scarey.

Regards
Rosemary

added

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 04:44:57 AM
  He knows this.  You clearly DON'T.  He's relying on your stupidity.  Frankly if I were you I'd feel insulted.  The ONLY thing that is correct in that waveform is its shape. 

Rosemary

Insulted?   Yea, Im feeling insulted. Just like everyone here has been saying.  Never thought there would come the day Rose.  Like Bond says, Never Say Never.

And that wasnt the question I was referring to from Pico. Its the one about the transistor being bad/shorted and the scope showing it.

Im interested in seeing what insults I will be getting next. Im going to get some sleep and wake up and take a vit B, turn on my laptop and see.


Mags

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2012, 05:06:12 AM
And guys what really troubles me is this.  Picowatt knows that there are really sophisticated readers here.  He also knows that those guys KNOW what I've just taken to trouble to explain.  Why then does he keep harping on this point?  Is he ONLY hoping to confuse the hell out of Magsy and those who really don't know these instruments?  And surely?  He knows this is all going to be tested under really stringent laboratory conditions.  He can't get away with this spin.  Yet he persists? 

I'm almost inclined to think that he believes it himself.  And then the confusion is compounded.  Because he then wrote to LeCroy - I beieve - to ask them if that waveform was correct.  No expert at LeCroy would even COMMENT without knowing what was being measured.  And if any of them were advised that it represented a square voltage measurement from a function generator then they most certainly would NOT have endorsed a DC coupling.  So.  I think, since he claims to have written to LeCroy he should then publish their answer.  Because frankly I don't even believe that he wrote to them.  Or if he did he did not apply the question in context.

But what is even more troubling is that he gets away with this spin.  Look how ENTIRELY Magsy 'bought in'.  He didn't even explain the point.  He just CLAIMED that it was INDEED a DC voltage.  And we ALL of us know that the signal from the function generator is DC.  Is it really that easy to fool the general public?  It's scarey.

Regards
Rosemary

And those sophisticated readers know you are wrong.

Attack and insult all you wish, it wll not change the facts.

And I claimed to have phoned LeCroy, quit putting your words in my mouth.

I can verbally put together technical questions that tech type people can understand, so I only phoned and spoke with tech support over the matter.

I suggest you FAX.