Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

picowatt - here's your statement.

When the Fg output is a negative voltage,  the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 turns Q1 off.  Simultaneously, a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q2 (the source of Q2 and gate of Q1 are connected and therefore always the same voltage).

You claim a negative signal at the gate of Q1.  You claim a simultaneous negative to the Source of Q1.  You admit to a connection between the source of Q2 and the Gate of Q1.   You OMIT reference to the connection between the source and gate of Q2.  IF the Source of Q2 is NEGATIVE - then the GATE OF Q2 is ALSO NEGATIVE.  Therefore - you are claiming that switch at Q2 is ON ... NOTWITHSTANDING A NEGATIVE SIGNAL AT THAT GATE.

Now.  I'm missing a very interesting program.  Cheers guys.

Rosie

I never stated or claimed that a negative voltage is applied to the source of Q1 and the gate of Q1 simultaneously.  Can't happen.  The source of Q1 is conected to the CSR (as is the gate of Q2).  The gate of Q1 is connected to the FG output (as  is the source of Q2).

I did indeed however mention that the gate of Q1 and source of Q2 are connected.  Therefore, the gate of Q1 and the source of Q2 are always at the same voltage.

When the FG output is a negative voltage, the negative voltage applied to the gate of Q1 essentially does nothing, Q1 is biased off and remains off during this portion of the cycle..

However, simultaneously, the FG's negative voltage is also applied to the source of Q2, which turns Q2 on.

What connection between the source of Q2 and the gate of Q2 are you referring too?

The gate of Q2 is connected to the CSR (as is the source of Q1).  The source of Q2 is connected to the FG output (and Q1 gate).  Are we looking at the same schematic?  The gate of Q2 and the source of Q2 are definitely not "connected" in the schematic in your paper.

Why would I mention or discuss a connection that does not exist?

[TinselKoala]

Even in that post she misrepresents what PW said.

Is it possible that she doesn't understand that those black lines in the schematic indicate CONNECTING WIRES?
Does her ignorance of the circuit actually run that deeply? Q2 Gate and Source connected?!? Sure, through the function generator (a bipolar power supply) they are.

I am flabbergasted yet again by the arrogance and ignorance of Rosemary Ainslie.

[picowatt]

Even in that post she misrepresents what PW said.

Is it possible that she doesn't understand that those black lines in the schematic indicate CONNECTING WIRES?
Does her ignorance of the circuit actually run that deeply? Q2 Gate and Source connected?!? Sure, through the function generator (a bipolar power supply) they are.

I am flabbergasted yet again by the arrogance and ignorance of Rosemary Ainslie.

Possibly she does not know what the little half loop in the wire crossing in the schematic means.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie said, in reference to PW's statement:

You claim a negative signal at the gate of Q1.  You claim a simultaneous negative to the Source of Q1.

Nowhere has PW claimed that. Ainslie, you are lying and misrepresenting PW's statement.


PROVE YOUR CLAIM, AINSLIE, by quoting where PW said what you say he said. YOU CANNOT, because he never said nor meant what YOU ARE CLAIMING HE SAID.

And we are supposed to have confidence in ANYTHING you say? You are a joke. You are arguing with your own hallucinations and rationalizations, and you are SIMPLY AND INEFFABLY WRONG.

[TinselKoala]

Possibly she does not know what the little half loop in the wire crossing in the schematic means.

Or the little letters "S", "D", and "G" either, since she draws her "schematics" like this: