Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala · August 08, 2009, 01:55:09 PM

Nice shots.

Oh, a question .99 asked earlier: No, the signal at the mosfet drain is not identical to the signal at the Ainslie Point "A" which is at the positive rail side of the load. There is a slight difference.
Sometimes where a circuit is measured can make a large difference in what you see on the instruments, even if you are technically looking at the same "node".
Professor Lewin of MIT has a YT video demonstration of this phenomenon that is pretty instructive. I don't have the url handy but I'm sure Harvey does.

This doesn't really mean much at the freqs we're discussing but it might mean something wrt displayed polarities--that is, if the positive probe tip is on the drain and the "ground" is on the positive rail...for some reason....

This seems to be becoming a scope endurance trial...the Fluke does have isolated probe and channel grounds, BTW, I just checked it--so one can take readings wrt 2 different ground references...handy feature, that. I just might have to revise my opinion of this scope.

Of course, they probably did it that way to enhance its idiot-proofness...I mean how often does one need to use two different ground references, and do it safely...

poynt99 · August 08, 2009, 02:04:55 PM

Actually TK that's not what I was saying.

It's just a bit of confusion here regarding point "A", the Drain, and circuit GND.

Point "A" is the battery +'ve terminal, and I was calling this V+. The load is connected here. The other end of the load is connected to the MOSFET Drain.

The voltage monitored at V+ and at the Drain are going to be miles apart in appearance or amplitude, if the reference is GND.

Hoppy and I showed a scope shot across the Load, which is of course from V+ (probe tip) to the Drain (probe gnd clip).

Hopefully that clears up what I was trying to say earlier

.99

WilbyInebriated · August 08, 2009, 02:11:14 PM

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 01:45:34 PM
there's nothing more humorous in my book than seeing someone trip over his own tongue.

like when you said the ifrpg50 would behave the same (which it didn't)? or your earlier comments about your opinion of the fluke (which you are now considering revising)?

yes, very humorous indeed... and poynt is catching on fast, asking people to show their build when all he has is a sim

poynt99 · August 08, 2009, 02:19:48 PM

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 08, 2009, 02:11:14 PM
and poynt is catching on fast, asking people to show their build when all he has is a sim

Are you retarded?

Read it again. I didn't ask to see anyone's "build". If anyone asks me for my build and proclaims that conventional analysis is bogus, then surely they must have their own proof of this right? I am asking for them to show this proof.

.99

WilbyInebriated · August 08, 2009, 02:26:47 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 02:19:48 PM
Are you retarded?

Read it again. I didn't ask to see anyone's "build". If anyone asks me for my build and proclaims that conventional analysis is bogus, then surely they must have their own proof of this right? I am asking for them to show this proof.

.99

surely they must? more assumption... more of your typical flawed logic.

Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 12:52:57 PM
@AllCanadian
I was wondering, have you built and tested this circuit or are you using your as the basis for all the conclusions you have come to?

.99

are you retarded? i am wondering myself. have you built and tested this circuit or are you STILL using your sim as a basis for your conclusions? 98 pages later...

turnabout is fair play no?