Quote from: poynt99 on June 20, 2013, 12:10:15 AM
PW,

It is a current output, so for a setting of plus or minus 10V, the current is limited to 200mA. If you attach a 50 Ohm load across the PG, the output voltage will drop in half, and the output current (from the transistors) will still be 200mA. So the maximum current that can be contributed by the PG would be 200mA.

Now if you tie the PG output to +72V, there would be 1.44A, +/- 200mA flowing through its internal 50 Ohm resistor (but at least it won't flow through the output transistors). The EVP circuit however should quickly detect the over voltage and disconnect the PG output.

.99,

Thanks, I see that from the manual/schematics.  (Thanks for the links TK)

So, if the PG output were to be set to a fixed negative voltage, Q2 is biased on and there is a 50R from the Q2 source to BATT- (or the CSR), with a highly compliant current source in parallel with the 50R whose current is determined by the setting of the PG's output amplitude.  I wonder what effect, if any, this might have on Q2's AC performance over simply having a 50R at its source... 

PW

Now she's squawking that her papers weren't rejected, every time she submitted them to IEEE journals. If her papers haven't been rejected.... then one simply must ask two questions:

1. Why did she say that they were? (Answer: because they were REJECTED.)
2. Where are the IEEE journals that contain the non-rejected papers? (Answer: Nowhere... because they WERE REJECTED.)

Some items of interest:

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2013, 01:57:29 AM
Now she's squawking that her papers weren't rejected, every time she submitted them to IEEE journals. If her papers haven't been rejected.... then one simply must ask two questions:

1. Why did she say that they were? (Answer: because they were REJECTED.)
2. Where are the IEEE journals that contain the non-rejected papers? (Answer: Nowhere... because they WERE REJECTED.)

Some items of interest:

TK,

Honestly, I can't make any sense from anything she has written lately.  Surely she could at least have one of her "engineers" put together a coherent paragraph explaining how Q1 in FIG3 can have +12 volts applied to its gate and not cause current to flow thru the CSR and post it, if that is truly what she believes.  No names needed, just a coherent paragraph or two.

Other than that, I see it is just business as usual with her insulting overtones.

It is not my fault there is an error in FIG3, yet it seems she only wants to shoot the messenger instead of actually addressing the issue.  And that has been the case from the beginning.

I also recall the time when she was a real stickler with regard to spelling... 

PW

And again, for the record, I have never claimed that Q1 _must_ be damaged.  That is only but one possibllity.  During the capture of FIG3, Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.  Those are the only three possible reasons for Q1 not turning on as it should in FIG3 that can be determined by looking only at FIG3 and the schematic.  As she only quotes the damaged scenario, possibly she knows which of the three is the correct one.

Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2013, 02:35:51 AM
TK,

Honestly, I can't make any sense from anything she has written lately. 

That is because she makes no sense. She can't even remember all her own lies any more.

Quote
Surely she could at least have one of her "engineers" put together a coherent paragraph explaining how Q1 in FIG3 can have +12 volts applied to its gate and not cause current to flow thru the CSR and post it, if that is truly what she believes.  No names needed, just a coherent paragraph or two.

Her engineers are imaginary. You won't be hearing anything coherent from them, or her.

Quote
Other than that, I see it is just business as usual with her insulting overtones.

I've been looking at my archive.... it's amazing how insulting she has been to .99 at various times over the years. Not to mention to you or to me. Anybody reading those things coming from her would think twice about dealing with her at all, the issue of the veracity of her claims notwithstanding. She has attacked all of her former "open source" collaborators with acid-dripping fangs.

Quote
It is not my fault there is an error in FIG3, yet it seems she only wants to shoot the messenger instead of actually addressing the issue.  And that has been the case from the beginning.

Indeed. I well recall the trouble over her bogus 555 timer circuit in the Quantum magazine.

Quote

I also recall the time when she was a real stickler with regard to spelling... 

I think it's appropriate to call her Ains-lie from now on, since she lies in one way or another with every post she makes.

Quote

PW

And again, for the record, I have never claimed that Q1 _must_ be damaged.  That is only but one possibllity.  During the capture related to FIG3, Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.  Those are the only three possible reasons for Q1 not turning on as it should in FIG3 that can be determined by looking only at FIG3 and the schematic.  As she only quotes the damaged scenario, possibly she knows which of the three is the correct one.

But we have .99's acknowledgement that running at the long period depicted in Figure 3 will likely blow a mosfet, so he won't even do it.

We also have this forum post from Ains-lie, where she describes the _very same_ experimental trial but couples it with SCRN 0342. This shows the mosfet is wired in and working.... at that time.

Note that she once again refers to the temperature of the water: 104 degrees C.

QuotepicowaT has dismissed our claims related to unity breaches based on the fact that we could not possibly have generated the waveform shown in Fig 3 - Paper 1.  I'll take the trouble to include that waveform hereunder.  This is based on the fact that our waveform across the gate shows that the function generator is applying a full 12 volts.  Which is more than enough to turn that MOSFET 'ON' and to allow a current discharge from the battery supply.  Yet no current flows.  Therefore the MOSFET must have been blown - so that the circuit remains open.  Because what is also evident in that waveform is that NO ENERGY - no CURRENT has been delivered by the battery.

This is totally untrue.  It is her credibility and integrity that I have dismissed because of this issue.  Particularly with regard to her continuous denials that FIG3 shows +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and her barrage of insults from the time this issue was first raised.

But now that she does agree that +12 volts IS being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, I am sure she will soon be offering apologies for all the insults and denigrations she has directed my way over this... and possibly even thank me for taking the time to try to teach her how to read her scope.

PW