Quote from: picowatt on June 28, 2012, 12:08:13 AM
Dear readers,

In the first paper (not the COP=17 paper), in FIG3 during the portion of the cycle wherein the function generator output is a positive voltage, the 'scope capture indicates that approximately +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  Surely all will agree that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause it to turn fully on.

However, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace does not indicate any significant current flow as would be expected from Q1 being turned fully on.

This can only mean that Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic.  Q1 cannot be a functioning device connected as per the schematic and have +12 volts applied to its gate without significant current flow being indicated.

As well, in the FIG7 the gate drive indicates that Q1 should turning on, yet again, the CSR trace indicates it is not.

The only explanations given to date by the author argue that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.  It was verified via a phone call with LeCroy that the 'scope is indeed being read correctly.  The author has also had plenty of opportunity to confirm this with LeCroy as well.  Instead the author has shown no interest in performing due diligence and confirming the indicated +12 volts with LeCroy (or anyone else), but merely prefers to stand by by the false assertion that the 'scope is being read incorrectly.  Recently it was argued that the 'scope channel for the FG should have been set to AC coupling, which is a ludicrous argument, as all familiar with the use of a 'scope will agree. 

Therefore, to date, no credible explanation has been provided by the author as to why Q1 is not functioning properly in FIG3 and FIG7.  It is readily apparent, however, that Q1 should be turning and that the CSR trace indicates that it is not. 

Also note that in FIG5, a 'scope capture made the month prior, the indicated gate drive is less than as indicated in FIG3, yet the CSR trace indicates significant current flow thru Q1.

So again the question must be asked, why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7 when it is clearly indicated that it should be?

PW

Bumped for clarity

There you have it guys.  Repetition.  It's all they rely on.  Sadly.  So. If you've read the one post then - in effect you've read them all.  Which makes this thread rather thin in substance but truly FAT in every other sense.  LOL.  I'll sit back and see YET MORE of this.  And then I may even add a little repetition of my own.  It's not as if it's likely to degrade this thread.  It can't get any worse.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

added

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 12:40:34 AM
There you have it guys.  Repetition.  It's all they rely on.  Sadly.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Actually, looking over it all, Pico is spot on. Sorry, but his explanation fits the picture.

Mags

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 12:40:34 AM
There you have it guys.  Repetition.  It's all they rely on.  Sadly.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

There you have it "guys", as usual, she never answers the question...

LOL.  Jolly good Mags.  So long as we've got your own learned expertise to give us the required commentary.  We'd never know what to think otherwise. 

Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
Actually, looking over it all, Pico is spot on. Sorry, but his explanation fits the picture.

Mags

Take care of yourself there Mags.  You're contributions are invaluable to the high standards here.

Rosie Pose