Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Okay, so continuing on with the discussion.

There are a few big unknowns relative to my discussion.  We don't know the actual timing of the "virtual gate" signal.  I am making an assumption of what the "virtual gate" signal might be, but I am not sure.

We can derive what the "gate" signal looks like by looking at the Q2 array source pin.  i.e.; the negative output from the function generator or function generator equivalent.

So in the quest for more information, the request is to see what the timing on that signal is.  So assume that you keep triggered on the "battery voltage" you look at the Q2 array source pin.  (Or you just have a single Q2 in this test setup if I remember correctly)

So now you have three signals, the battery voltage, the CVR waveform, and the Q2 source pin voltage and you know the precise timing relationship between all three.  And we are "molasses in January" about 600 KHz, yippee!

Here is were I recommend you go low tech.  Get a pencil and some graph paper and sketch out the three waveforms based on your scopeoscopy with all of the proper timings.

For a really helpful bonus, you can also sketch out some derived waveforms.  You can sketch out the gate voltage, which is just the ground (possibly CVR) potential minus the Q2 source pin voltage.  (Just to make it easier on the brain.) You can also sketch out the MOSFET DS capacitance voltage!  It's just the battery voltage minus the Q2 source pin voltage.

To be really picky, it might be worth it to verify the propagation delay for the MOSFET switching on.  You are happily running at a lower frequency so it's probably not an issue.

Ooops, another verification I almost forgot.  You have one probe on the battery voltage.  Put the other probe on the MOSFET drain pin.  If my theory is correct they should be almost identical.  This would tend to confirm that the MOSFET DS capacitance and the wire length capacitance are charging up like I am suggesting.

Okay, now you have a cool timing diagram to show in a clip.  We do NOT need to see you do this live with one hand - if you choose to do the investigation.

Assuming that you have the waveforms, then next question is does everything fit together like I am suggesting?  Maybe I am wrong.  After all, I don't have all of the information.  Look at all of the relationships, what can be concluded.  What about the current reversing direction?  Do we have a handle on that, etc?

Supposing that I am right.  That would tend to suggest that we are now able to tie in the wire inductance effects with the exaggerated battery voltage.  It also explains the greatly reduced battery voltage.  If we are really confident of this, then we have a chain of evidence to support the idea that the "battery voltage" is not actually the true battery voltage.

Thanks for this contribution MileHigh.  I see now why you're in sales.  Is this that 'treatise' you mentioned earlier?  It's remarkably entertaining.

And here's the doozy...

I am going to discuss the case with the extra inductance.  Understanding this case will allow you to understand the regular case.

Here is my theory:  When you see the battery voltage take the sharp fall, that's when the MOSFET switches on.  After about 1/2 a cycle, that's when the MOSFET switches off.

Especially intriguing. It is a perfect example of the fatuously self-evident being delivered by the tediously pompous.

Rosie Posie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

How predictable.  Any attempts at doing a serious investigation that could threaten your proposition are dismissed by you.  You even try to make light of it by stating that it's "remarkably entertaining."

Anything that supports your proposition is good, even if it is nonsense.  Anything that has the slightest whiff of not supporting your proposition is junk - according to you.

The truth of the matter is that you don't even understand what I wrote and you could never have conceptualized it yourself, not in a million years.  So you are not even in a position to pass judgement on it.

How about my posting requesting improved documentation and supplementary testing for your upcoming round of dim bulb testing.  What do you have to say about that?

MileHigh

Rosemary:

It is a perfect example of the fatuously self-evident being delivered by the tediously pompous.

You are full of shit.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What an entertaining series of posts.  Now we have this one...  LOL

@MH:  I'll watch all right.  You did see that I corrected the value of that inductance, I hope.

I misread the meter as nH when it was telling me uH. That's what I get for being so pysplexic. The correct inductance is about 28 microHenry, not nanoH. .99 poynted out that the nH value was implausible, and I certainly should have known better. No more posting before that second cup of coffee for me !! Sorry about that.

It's a bit more than necessary to show some effect... but now I know roughly exactly how much to add to get down to whatever frequency is deemed nominal for the oscillations. If I use about a third of that and scatter it around, I should wind up close to 1.4-1.5 MHz.

Knowing something 'roughly' and 'exactly' sufficient to 'scatter it around' to the four winds - in any and every direction - to derive a predicted conclusion predicated by that 'roughly exact informational data - dreamed up or real - imaginary or factual - roughly or exacly - to 1.4- 1.5 MHz. Golly we're going from obscurity - into the blackness of that INFINITE vacuum of space.

No wonder poor Harti's readership is moving away - by the droves. 

Rosie Pose 

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Knowing something 'roughly' and 'exactly' sufficient to 'scatter it around' to the four winds - in any and every direction - to derive a predicted conclusion predicated by that 'roughly exact informational data - dreamed up or real - imaginary or factual - roughly or exacly - to 1.4- 1.5 MHz. Golly we're going from obscurity - into the blackness of that INFINITE vacuum of space.

No wonder poor Harti's readership is moving away - by the droves. 

This is another pure garbage posting by you.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are not going to ruin this discussion with your inane nonsense.  It's not going to happen.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

This is another pure garbage posting by you.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are not going to ruin this discussion with your inane nonsense.  It's not going to happen.

MileHigh

WHAT discussion?  I keep hoping for some kind of SKILL or some kind of relevance.  But it seems that my hopes are likely to be still born.  WHY do you think MilesOfPurePretension - that I took the trouble to advise you to correct your GROSS and ELEMENTARY errors in power analysis.  It's PRECISELY because I want our readers to think that there's some skill and therefore some relevance to ANY arguments that you propose.  When  you  parade this level of absurdity - then with respect - there is NO reader who will take you or this subject seriously.

And that CERTAINLY is not in the interests of progressing this technology.  There are only TWO members dealing with this subject that are able to keep the subject relevant.  And all  you and TK manage to do is to detract from their hard work. 

Rosie Pose
Not edited so much as I must have hit the post button too early.