another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[MileHigh]

Try again Rosemary if you are going to play with the so-called "big boys" then you have learn to talk like the big boys.

Your answer is ambiguous and raises more questions than it tries to answer.  We want a coherent and definitive answer from you that makes sense.

Your answer is not not acceptable.  Try again.

MileHigh

[picowatt]

We do not measure an input of  current from the function generator.  On the contrary.  It seems that current is being returned there.

Rosemary

I assume your distinction between "an input of current from" and "being returned there" is in reference to polarity.  Indeed, a function generator, depending on its connection to a circuit and the settings on its front panel, can "sink" or "source" current, as it is typically referred to.

So, are you saying "yes", current can flow through a function generator but that you are merely making a distinction between the actual polarity of that current flow as it applies to your circuit?

PW

[TinselKoala]

She has no idea what she IS talking about. We have all of us read and understood the Agilent document... all of us except You Know Who.

RE the comment in her MISQUOTE of me about "phase shifts"... this has been explained MANY TIMES as an artefact of the oscilloscope and it has also been shown how to prevent it WHEN AN EXTERNAL TRIGGER IS AVAILABLE. Anyone who actually understands these matters knows that I am correct, ONCE AGAIN, about some distortion that RA tries to pin on me.

Rosemary, you have got to stop that crap. If you don't understand what you see, ASK YOUR ACADEMICS to explain it to you; don't just pull something out of left field and call it an "explanation" or a "quotation".

Going back nearly TWO WEEKS....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60ycUsuPIY

Function generator polarity and current flow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI

Dolt.

[TinselKoala]

Oh, this burns me up. Rosemary, you are a liar of the worst kind. How many husbands have you buried, anyway?

Here is the paragraph that she is revising in her comment below.

I said, directed to .99,

.99: In the video I realize that I'm oscillating the Q1 mosfet because I've got the 555 pin 3 going to the FG POSITIVE location on the circuit, but now I've fixed that, simply by routing the Pin 3 to the FG NEGATIVE location on the circuit (duh). Using a variable power supply at 10 volts input to the 555 circuit, I have perfectly stable oscillations on the Q2 mosfet drains (and everywhere else of course) and a reading on the inline meter of about 320 mA..... and the load is warming nicely. (9 volts from the 9v battery wasn't quite enough to get stable in the q2 osc mode.) I found that the 555 gets hot and glitchy so I put a heat sink on it and now it is perfectly stable, has been running the Tar Baby and heating the load with Q2 oscs only for an hour or so, load is up to 104 F.

And she says,

Guys,

Now that I've got my thread back - partially - I've also got the time to comment on previous posts in better detail.  This one is intriguing. Lest anyone's inclined to take it seriously - a transcript follows.

Transcript. Look up the definition of a transcript. The ABOVE is a transcript. The BELOW is a lying distortion.

Here's how I read this paragraph.

"I got the oscillations even though I put the 555 pin 3 at the FG positive.  But I've fixed that.  I changed to a variable power supply and I also put that 555 pin 2 to the FG negative.  And now.  Surprisingly all is STILL oscillating as it should be.  Everywhere.  And off my little inline ammeter I can show a current drawn down at 320 mA... Although my little inline ammeter can't read amperage at these frequencies.  And the load is warming up nicely - but that 'warm up' is ONLY due to the 'tuning prior to the oscillations.  It has nothing to do with the oscillations themselves - which are essentially valueless.  I've already explained this.  In my previous video related to this.  And nor am I about to tell you the actual voltage across the batteries - because then I'd have to admit that I'm using batteries.  And worse still - you'll be able to calculate how much energy is being dissipated at that load.  Or you might.  God forbid that anything become that relevant.  So.  For now.  Pro temp.  Assume that it is NOT whatever is shown.  And while I'm at it - DID I MENTION THAT THERE ARE PHASE SHIFTS?  If not... then look closely.  And I'll not bother to calculate the voltage across the load - but REST ASSURED.  It's sum is NEGATIVE.  I sucked that number out of my thumb after I'd washed my hands.  But before my manicure.  That way you can assume freely.  Like I do.  And I am most earnestly IMPLYING that we're doing a replication of the NERD circuit array and not the TK TAR BABY which stands for 'TERRIBLE KIND OF TRIAL AT REPLICATING - BABY.  And BABY stands for Badly Advised By an Y'idiot."

So indeed - if I do not view TK's videos then I may very well fall 'behind'.  And thankfully TK's work PROGRESSES. And thankfully I took note of his caution.  As for the rest of that post - I think I covered that point where he proposed that he was, in fact an ANONYMOUS BLIND REVIEWER.  Golly.  Thankfully he's basing his review of his own hard work on that Terrible Kind of Trial at Replicating.  BABY.  And being blind he's  under no obligation to refer to facts. 

THANKFULLY.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

You are a lying, evil, mean-spirited old woman, and you aren't very nice at all, and every time you sign your posts with "Kindest Regards", yet your posts are dripping with lies and insults and distortions.... you reveal your underlying hypocrisy and withered spirit.

[TinselKoala]

In a very mean spirited "reply" to fuzzytomcat, Rosemary Ainslie wrote,

(snip)
Someone may want to inform this writer that 'self bloviating' doesn't actually mean anything at all.  (snip)
Anyway - far be it from me to discourage this effort.  I've always been something of a scholar of the written word.  (snip)
Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie

Googling "bloviating":

Search   About 383,000 results  (0.12 seconds)

Here are a few of the more reliable definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloviate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloviation
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bloviating
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bloviate


I swear, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's not even sportsmanlike. "Self-bloviating" has an obvious, well defined and very appropriately applied meaning.