Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Groundloop]

To Groundloop - I can now answer you - but will do it by email.  You can publish that answer or not.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

As for the email or pm, I have not received anything from you yet, regarding the type of circuit oscillation?

GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

As for the email or pm, I have not received anything from you yet, regarding the type of circuit oscillation?

GL.

Hello Groundloop

I KNOW I had your email address - but can't find it.  Email me and I'll reply.

Sorry about that
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - just to alert you to 'spin'.

Yes, MH, she's contradicting herself yet again, in the most blatant and transparent way. How many times has she denied that the FG can pass current? How can she not realize that the current to charge the GATE is not even measureable by her instruments it's so small?

Not actually.  Not even close.  In fact. ON THE CONTRARY.  LOL.  In fact this DIAMETRICALLY opposes the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it.  I believe it is actually TK, MileHigh and Picowatt who RELY on the argument that there is this rather HEFTY oscillation resulting from the flow of current from the function generator onto the circuit apparatus.  All of which is then SEEN by the current VIEWING resistor (CVR) - with its sight  enabled by a pair of dark glasses.      This statement of TK's is SO WRONG as to be rather amusing. I on the contrary claim that there's NO current flow from the function generator ONTO THE CIRCUIT.  Golly.  It's CRAZY wrong.  I trust that you're aware of this.  I certainly hope so.  But. As mentioned.  It's that preposterous - it's actually funny.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for this number...

TK,

I read the blog link.

Based on that read, I think part of RA's misunderstanding is that she believes the gate of Q2 is being switched by the FG.  The gate of Q2 will always be very close to ground.  It is at whatever voltage the non-battery end of the CSR is at.  I think, from her drawing in that blog link, that she believes the FG is making the Q2 gate positive when the FG output is negative.  Her reference to current flow or switching regarding Q2's gate further supports this.

I do not think she realizes an FG has a bipolar power supply that allows its output to swing either positive or negative with respect to its signal ground, which will always remain at the potential to which it is attached.  When the FG output is positive, it charges the Q1 gate and turns Q1 on.  But when ithe FG output is negative, the Q2 gate continues to remain very close to ground and its source is brought negative by the FG, which biases Q2 on and current flows thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR.  I believe she thinks the FG is switching the Q2 gate when the FG is negative and this is clearly not so.   

Possiibly, if someone redrew a drawing like the first one GL posted with two batteries in series representing the FG bipolar supply with the centertap of the batteries connected to the CSR and a SPDT switch to select the polarity supplied via a 50R to the Q2 source and Q1 gate, it might help her understand.

Might...

PW

LOL  It seems picowatt has still not mastered that copy paste number.  And yet he's trying to teach us anything at all about a MOSFET.  What he needs to show us is how an applied positive voltage at the GATE of Q2 can then conduct upwards of 4 amps of negative current flow generated from capacitance across the MOSFET  > through the function generator probe and its terminal > back to the Source Rail of the battery supply > and then inject this upwards of 4 amps of NEGATIVE current flow > across the current sensing resistors > move this through upwards of 26 volts from a battery supply source > and then through the load > back to the DRAIN of Q2 while it remains - unarguably and unequivocally BELOW that zero crossing line.  And he argues that all is to be expected?  IF that energy is from capacitance at the MOSFET - then that's an ENORMOUS amount of capacitance.  Somehow able to generate in the order of 4 amps x 26 volts and UPWARDS.  Which capacitance - ATYPICALLY - and contrary to ALL standard prediction - is then also ABLE TO DISSIPATE HEAT AT THE LOAD.  Clearly it's a load of nonsense.  Which makes the balance of his statements - ?  Whatever.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[picowatt]

Guys - just to alert you to 'spin'.Not actually.  Not even close.  In fact. ON THE CONTRARY.  LOL.  In fact this DIAMETRICALLY opposes the 'real truth' as MileHigh puts it.  I believe it is actually TK, MileHigh and Picowatt who RELY on the argument that there is this rather HEFTY oscillation resulting from the flow of current from the function generator onto the circuit apparatus.  All of which is then SEEN by the current VIEWING resistor (CVR) - with its sight  enabled by a pair of dark glasses.      This statement of TK's is SO WRONG as to be rather amusing. I on the contrary claim that there's NO current flow from the function generator ONTO THE CIRCUIT.  Golly.  It's CRAZY wrong.  I trust that you're aware of this.  I certainly hope so.  But. As mentioned.  It's that preposterous - it's actually funny.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I assume this to mean that you now understand and agree with Groundloop's first drawing wherein the FG is depicted as a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor.

Understanding how, when the FG output is negative, Q2 is biased "on" into a linear region of operation and that the DC bias current consequently flows thru Rload, Q2, the FG, and the CSR, is the first step toward understanding the how and why of the oscillaton.

Golly, progress, good for you!

PW