Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

I'm not quite sure what Harvey is trying to show or prove, and also why he's using that toy simulator when by his own admission he has a decent one at hand  Are those MOSFETs real? (what type?), generic, ideal?, other?

Why two switches? If they are models of real MOSFETs, then I can see why, but if they are more of an ideal switch, then only one is necessary and the circuit can be simplified further.

Also, those inductor and cap values are wack. Something much more realistic should be used, especially pertaining to the RA circuit. The values I used worked quite well if you want to stretch things a bit for better illustration purposes; i.e. 1600uH with series 10 Ohm // 50pF with series 1k.

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

no the mosfets are not real, they are virtual, sims. are you not familiar with the difference between real and virtual?

[Asymatrix]

feigned ignorance? could you provide a reference? HIS REFUSAL TO USE THE SPECIFIED FET FOR OVER 30 PAGES IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER THOROUGH? AND SCIENCE?  LMFAO
THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH TK'S SCIENTIFIC METHOD. there, it is in caps, maybe you will understand it now with your 5th grade comprehension skill.

where did i request he use a ebay mosfet? i suggested he might be able to find one off ebay after his litany of asinine excuses as why he could not find one. there is a difference there, but i wouldn't expect you to be aware of it...  and yes using an ebay irfpg50 would have been better scientific method AND MORE ACCURATE than just using whatever is laying on the bench.

BS about accuracy? please show where i posted BS about accuracy...

You posted a link to the mosfet on ebay. The reason for the delay was not wanting to have buy a large batch of mosfets (from a reliable source) An ebay mosfet certainly would NOT have been better scientific method or more accurate.

Just keep looking for irrelevant minutia while the circuit is tested with every conceivable metric. It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that? Of course not, it's still page after page of BS.

[WilbyInebriated]

You posted a link to the mosfet on ebay. The reason for the delay was not wanting to have buy a large batch of mosfets (from a reliable source) An ebay mosfet certainly would NOT have been better scientific method or more accurate.

Just keep looking for irrelevant minutia while the circuit is tested with every conceivable metric. It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that? Of course not, it's still page after page of BS.

so how is that a request to use that particular mosfet? furthermore if you follow the context of the conversation at that time (which i doubt you can with your limited comprehension) the link was posted to demonstrate single fets were in fact available, contrary to your hero's assertions otherwise and they were nowhere near as "expensive" as he made them out to be. ramset even asked tk if he was in zimbabwe... and yes, using a irfpg50 when attempting (and i use that term loosely here regarding tk's "apparatus") a replication that specifies a irfpg50 would be more accurate and would have actually adhered to scientific method. using whatever is on hand does neither. sounds like your pushing BS to me. explain how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method. i got my chair all ready.

no difference? what about this statement by your hero?

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.

this is the part that should concern you, "So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that." as it is contrary to your statement that "It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that?" you and your magnanimous trinity partner should get that worked out... your loyalty as a sycophant is admirable and laughable at the same time

edit: my favorite part is the "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." statement by the dancing bear.
that's brilliant, classic tk... i think, maybe 

[Asymatrix]

so how is that a request to use that particular mosfet? furthermore if you follow the context of the conversation at that time (which i doubt you can with your limited comprehension) the link was posted to demonstrate single fets were in fact available, contrary to your hero's assertions otherwise and they were nowhere near as "expensive" as he made them out to be. ramset even asked tk if he was in zimbabwe... and yes, using a irfpg50 when attempting (and i use that term loosely here) a replication that specifies a irfpg50 would be more accurate and would have actually adhere to scientific method. using whatever is on hand does neither. sounds like your pushing BS to me. explain how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method. i got my chair all ready.

You 'demonstrated' that if someone wants to use a mosfet from god-knows-where off ebay, in order to buy a single item, it would be OK according to your laughable scientific method.   

Now that TK spent the $ and got the 'right' mosfet from a reliable source, tested the circut, and showed no real difference in regards to OU, how is it that you did not simply admit you were completely wrong, and crawl back under a rock?

Simple. You are a troll.