Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

i repeat, HOW IS THAT A REQUEST?
i missed your explanation of how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method...
and now you claim in your last post that using the specified fet when attempting a replication is "laughable". does anyone, other than tk and his sycophants, believe such to be good scientific method?

you still haven't reconciled this statement from tk

So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

with this statement of yours.

It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that?

[Asymatrix]

i missed your explanation of how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method...
does anyone, other than tk and his sycophants, believe such to be good scientific method?

you still haven't reconciled this statement from tk with this statement of yours.

Because slight variations in a single part makes no difference in achieving OU. Everything you whine about has been shown to be completely irrelevant, yet here you are, still trolling.

Meanwhile, you do no tests of your own, and offer no data at all.

Perhaps you can find another board to troll on.

[WilbyInebriated]

Because slight variations in a single part makes no difference in achieving OU. Everything you whine about has been shown to be completely irrelevant, yet here you are, still trolling.

Meanwhile, you do no tests of your own, and offer no data at all.

Perhaps you can find another board to troll on.

tk never said anything about ou, he was comparing the performance. it's right here. open your eyes and comprehend what has been said.

I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.

So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

where does he say any thing about ou in that post? POINT IN FACT, he specifically says, and i quote, "from a traditional engineering viewpoint".

we have been over that, we are critiquing tk's hack of a replication. not mine.

perhaps you can work on your comprehension skills?
again, your loyalty as a sycophant is admirable and laughable at the same time.

[WilbyInebriated]

check out this post where he asks me to show him a difference in PERFORMANCE.

Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)

and lo and behold! there WAS a significant difference. how did tk say it? "From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit". MUCH better, he even emphasized MUCH.

he then tried to twist his way out by saying the original claim was something different and all the good sycophants bought it. hook, line and sinker.

But MY point is that since neither one of them produces OVERUNITY -- which was the original claim, remember --

it sucks for you and your hero that there are a few of us here that can read, comprehend and have a decent memory...

edit: anyone have any idea what a "2sk1548 diode" is? must be more of that phenomenal attention to detail that tk applies.

[WilbyInebriated]

more clear evidence that tk was not referencing "overunity performance" as he is so conveniently now trying to claim.

Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue?

sycophants take notice that he never mentions "overunity performance" until now.