Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

TK - may I propose some quid pro quo.  Is there some reason you have not addressed the points in this post of mine?

Guys, just to alert you to the 'spin' - as ever and in answer to this FIRST point of TK's earlier post....

1. Where have I ever claimed to have a degree in electrical engineering? Two days ago she said I was a psychologist. Polly Parrot is flailing around again.

Our little TK's 'bluff and blunder' included the following statement posted as recently as two days ago. 

Personally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA.

NOTA BENE.  he has sat through classroom instruction in these topics.  The topic under discussion was 'how to determine dissipated or delivered energy from a switched circuit?'  He then claims that he 'sat exams' on PRECISELY this subject.  And 'passed them with honours'.  And then he states not only that he is CREDENTIALED but that he has DEGREES -  ie more than 1? - from RESEARCH universities? (God alone know why he makes that distinction.  They're all dedicated to research ... I'd have thought.  LOL) In any event the gist of this post is CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL.  He's claiming credentialed knowledge of power engineering to the level of honours.  And he draws the distinction that I by contrast am nothing more than a 'high school drop out'.  This is patently untrue - easily disprovable and yet ANOTHER example of SLANDER - which is stated here...

YOU have not got the prerequisite education to understand the concepts you are trying to discuss, this is evident DAILY in something or other that you say, and reading popular books like "Dancing Wu Li Masters" does not a physics education make.

Effectively therefore he is stating that UNLESS one has the required credentials then one is NOT qualified to comment.  BUT - the hell of it is this.  His own flaunted lack of appropriate knowledge is grossly evident.  He's confusions manifold - as scheduled hereunder - and with it an amateurish level of electrical engineering that even surpasses my own.
.  He assumes a MOSFET is a mosfet
.  He refers to a CSR as a CVR
.  He computes resistance without reference to frequency and resulting impedance
.  He claims he can calibrate his instruments with reference to other uncalibrated instruments
.  He uses nominally inductive loads in his 'flaunted' efforts to replicate our own NERD circuit apparatus
.  He gives us videos - time out of mind - where it is IMPOSSIBLE to validate his multiple reference points which is utterly unprofessional
.  He claims results without ever giving a CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS schedule of those results which is utterly unprofessional
.  He concludes without giving a clear argument to support his conclusions which is utterly unprofessional
   And then the doozy
.  He ALSO now claims that you can 'infer' a wattage value from an incomplete sample range of voltage on a switching circuit

I trust that this answers his first question of this post.  I'll deal with the balance of those questions in due course.
It seems that his new name for me is Polly Parrot?  And again, guys NOTA BENE - quite apart from the disgusting level of rudeness associated with this term - is HARTI's ENDORSEMENT of this traducement.  He does NOTHING to prevent it.  Indeed - from appearances it seems that he is - rather - ACTIVELY encouraging it.  THAT is what should be of primary concern in this whole exercise.  What TK chooses to allege and infer and imply and the names he uses for me - are inconsequential - in comparison.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

There is no plot. And I'm not referring to any scope shots or measurements yet, because I said I will do this test this weekend. And you should know your circuit by now. It is quite obvious that I'm going to test the mosfet that switches ON when you put a positive bias to the gate and NOT the other one that oscillate with a positive bias and has a grounded gate. Your circuit drawing has been posted a zillion times now and you should know your circuit. I will post a drawing of what I will be testing this weekend.

GL.

Groundloop.  I have just seen this post of yours.  May I ask if I have 'offended you'?  Somehow?  The tone of this post of yours is one of EXASPERATION verging on 'rudeness'?  Of course I know my circuit.  But we have published MANY different test results from many different settings.  And why should it be OBVIOUS that you're going to test the MOSFET that switches ON.  It would be just as OBVIOUS to test the MOSFET that is NOT switching on - DESPITE a positive signal at ITS GATE?  I would have thought.  Are you simply pretending that I've badgered you?  to test anything at all?  Do I somehow deserve this - in the light on our email correspondence?  I assumed we were friends.  Are you trying to let everyone know that we're NOT?  Or indeed, was I mistaken in assuming that we WERE friends?  Or is it that for the first time in the 4 years that I have been following your posts - that you have FINALLY changed from the single most reasonable poster I have ever studied - to one on veiled belligerence?   

I cannot understand this 'tone'.  It is ill mannered and undeserved and entirely out of character.  Are you joining the TK bandwagon here?  Is that it?  For whatever reason?

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And TK - another one.  How does this post of yours hereunder...

Polly Parrot Ainslie squawked,
And I have preserved
it here for posterity... and evidence.
How, then, do you explain it, Ainslie? How do you, and nobody else, manage to apply 12 volts to a functioning mosfet and not turn it on,if the mosfet is not blown? Perhaps it's miswired, or perhaps the probes aren't connected properly, or maybe even the LOAD ITSELF is open. I don't know... but I do know that your scopeshot shows NO CURRENT FLOWING. The most likely reason is that YOUR MOSFET CANNOT HANDLE THE HEAT when you are using 72 volts and a positive gate drive. Why else would you remove a battery to make only 48 volts in your demo of that mode?
You explain it, please.

And IN ADDITION I am reporting this post to our kind host.

In any way answer this post of mine?

Keep it up, Polly, you are just about down to the bedrock, scraping away with those bloody fingernails.

>>This sentence has no part in any science forum anywhere - ever.  It is ONLY appropriate to 'spin'.  I do NOT have bloody fingernails.  My hands are reasonably manicured.  And not even 'figuratively' do I have bloody fingernails.  Nor am I 'down to 'bedrock'.  Except in the sense that I am working on a foundation of known physics and well established measurement protocols.  Where you seem to be imposing a variation in the assessment of WATTAGE - and being aided and abetted in these rather misinformed endeavours - by your 'friends' - picowatt - PhiChser - FTC - and others.  You are all of you WRONG.  And if you managed to find 10 more to support this contention - you would STILL all be wrong.  Unless you are SERIOUSLY proposing to revise our standard measurement protocols.  In which case you would need to introduce an entirely new method of measurement analysis.


For some reason you seem to think that it deserves being preserved for 'posterity'?  I think more to the point is that you PERSIST with the calumny related to calling me Polly Parrot and then you add the indignity of saying that I 'squawked' .  You then advised all and sundry that you were REPORTING my protest to Harti.  WELL?  WHY should I answer you in any context at all when you are this flagrantly and criminally abusive in your reply to me?

Rosie Pose

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And TK nor have you addressed this point in this post of mine.

And then onto this last scheduled point... NUMBER 4

4. When does DC become DC? For 16 milliseconds out of every approx. 125 millisecond period, the circuit is passing a DC current of 320 mA at 62 volts from the battery. FOR THAT 16 milliseconds of each period, DC current flows, inductance doesn't matter, and 16 milliseconds is a long time. What is the average DC power during those 16 milliseconds?

(Edit: for a moment there I referenced the wrong scope shot, where she used a 50 second timebase setting-- the one with the blown mosfet. This scopeshot has a 50 millisecond timebase setting. Sorry.)

In answer to 'when does the DC become DC'?  It is DC when it is continually greater than ground for the duration of a switched cycle.  There is no other time.

And regarding your 'edit' - our 50 second timebase setting does NOT have a blown MOSFET.  Never has and NEVER did.  This is a gross misrepresentation of the fact is thereby also SLANDEROUS.  Again.  Why is it that Harti is encouraging this editorial bias - and, for this matter, this SLANDER.  This ALLEGATION that our MOSFET has blown is EASILY DISPROVED.  And we shall do so in our demonstrations.  At which point TK will be obliged to retract this statement.  It is a shame that he's not obliged to do so BEFORE our demonstration.  But just as a point of interest.  TK CLAIMS to be credentialed.  He is, thereby CLAIMING a level of professionalism.  That professionalism includes a PLEDGE to act in a professional manner. A professional manner precludes any criminal or nefarious activitiy.  Slander is a criminal offense.  Thereby does TK disprove his own claims of professionalism.  And with it he disproves his CLAIMED accreditation.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

NOR TK for that matter, have you addressed the points in THIS post.

Guys,

Polly thinks I am "criminally accountable" for something. I think that is an ACTIONABLE SLANDER and that she should be very very careful in her accusations, because I HAVE PROOF of everything I've ever said here.... AND SHE DOES NOT.

At best - this is an 'unsupported allegation'.  He has claimed that I am a 'high school drop out'.  He has named me 'polly parrot'.  He has stated that I 'hallucinate'... with 'words' - no less?  LOL.  And that's just some of those terms chosen from a list of expletives and invectives and claims that are easily disproved.  And there are MANY others - especially as they relate to our technology.  ALL of them EASILY disproved.  All of them ACTIONABLE.  All of them thereby SLANDEROUS and CRIMINAL.  And this is being ACTIVELY encouraged by our Harti.  Why?  Why all that preferred editorial bias?  It is certainly all food for thought. 

Regards as ever,
Rosemary