a field programmable gate array. the logic elements that constitute its most elementary workings can be changed at will by reprogramming the bits in the chip’s memory, known as configuration bits. gates, for example, can be changed to and gates or not gates, input wires can be reprogrammed to be output wires, and so on.

edit: look at the config bits as a genetic algorithm chromosome and we can 'evolve' circuits. circuits that do some amazing things.

Ok.  So is the idea here to apply a variety of settings at the gate?  Is that it?  Please Wilby.  There are those of us who read here who are mere mortals.  Please explain your thinking more simply.  If this is going where I think it is then this could be very interesting.  But right now I'm just guessing at what you're pointing at.

Kindest regards - and SO NICE TO SEE YOU'RE  PREPARED TO ENGAGE HERE. 
 
Rosie

And MileHigh - I really don't want to encourage you by answering any of your absurdities - but let me remind you.  You and your predictions are as relevant to this discussion as the Jurassic period of the Mesozoic era.  They're already outmoded - even within classical paradigms.  You've just never caught up. 

Just remember that the survivors of that era had to 'FLY'.  You're still crawling along - bound as you are by all that antiquated thinking.  But I'm glad that you're happy with it.  I realise that you're rather monstrously hide bound - being as it is that you belong - not to this century but to the centuries past.  Would that we could all live there.  It was a far less polluted and a far less populated place.  But reality bites MileHigh.  And right now you're doing what ostriches do best when they don't want to see what's coming for them. 

You most CERTAINLY were enlisted.  The whole point of Poynty's forum is to entrench paradigms that have already collapsed all over the place - LONG back.  All those members are enlisted.  What you represent is the wate product of this new age reach into new thinking.  You are absolutely not capable of it.  But nor can I blame you.  We all have our limitations.  And if I'm a carricature - it's a carricature that I'm really happy with.  You're own is easy.  Just need to picture a tyrranosaurus rex that has also lost those teeth.  Sort of loses it's scare factor - it's local or general relevance.  And it certainly then also loses any kind of interest - except of course - for other elderly dinosaurs.  I just wish you'd stop trying to make a meal out of discussing me.  It's exhausting. 

Rosemary

 

Ok.  So is the idea here to apply a variety of settings at the gate?  Is that it?  Please Wilby.  There are those of us who read here who are mere mortals.  Please explain your thinking more simply.  If this is going where I think it is then this could be very interesting.  But right now I'm just guessing at what you're pointing at.

Kindest regards - and SO NICE TO SEE YOU'RE  PREPARED TO ENGAGE HERE. 
 
Rosie

the gist of 'evolvable' hardware is simple enough. the configuration bits that program the wiring and circuitry of the fpga become the 'chromosomes' of the individuals to undergo the trial of survival of the fittest. the chip is configured, then set to do some task (like applying various settings at the gate, or something else), and its performance is measured. then the bit streams representing the best-performing configurations are mated together, mutations are added, and new individuals are tested, measured, and either discarded or mated. eventually, a configuration should emerge that’s very good at accomplishing a specific task, albeit might take thousands of generations to appear.

the beauty of it is, that you can use the fpga's as blank evolutionary 'slates' and let evolution fiddle around with the fine details. ie: you can create without any preconceptions built in. so, it’s not told anything about what is 'good' and what is 'bad' or how it achieves the behavior. evolution just plays around making changes, and if the changes produce an improvement, then fine. it doesn’t matter whether it’s changing the circuit design or using just about any weird, subtle bit of physics (note: this doesn't work on the simulation fpgas, only hardware fpgas) that might be going on. the only thing that matters to evolution is the overall behavior. this means you can explore all kinds of ways of building things that are completely beyond the scope of conventional methods. allow evolution to write all the design rules.

i hope that helps elucidate, i can be rather terse at times and expect people to 'see' what i see. it's a character flaw.

@poynt99 .Can you please answer a simple question for me . Preferably with a yes or a no .Do you now believe , as a result of your simulation results ,that the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit is overunity . That is to say , that it provides heat output whilst charging the batteries .

And anyway - on a more constructive note.  Guys.  We've got a new Tektronix functions generator.  I believe it can give a 5% duty cycle.  We'll be trying this out today and hopefully I'll have some measurements later.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary, you mentioned that you couldn't get that massively-long mark-space ratio to work properly anymore a few pages back - is that the reason you had to get another one, or was it just for the shorter duty-cycle?

hi Rosemary

if 4 out of the 5 MOSFETs are merely providing (rather unconventional) feed back to Q1 gate, how many are actually needed to achieve the same effective results (eg. as March 12)?  does it still work with, say: 4? ..3? ..2? ..1?

also, does any other particular number of 'feedback' MOSFETs appear to give a better result than 4 of them?

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

In my simulation, going from 4 mosfets down to 1 mosfet in pseudo-parallel with Q1, the Fo changes from ~1.3MHz to ~1.8MHz, and the P-P voltages increase about 25% or so. This make sense to me.

I'm currently looking for my spare IRFPG50, but so far I can't find it. I am pretty sure I bought 2 when I was putting together GL's PCB to test the previous version of this project. If I can find it, I might try the two in psuedo-parallel and see if I can get the oscillation.

.99

Briefly once again looking at the CSR placement, we see from the IR datasheet for the IRFPG50, that they are placing the CSR outside the Vgs loop. This avoids the possibility of the Gate drive interfering with the current measurement.

It also eliminates the appearance of the CSR voltage on the Gate drive, which can modulate it and cause instability. This is usually only a concern if the CSR resistor value is relatively high, or it exhibits significant inductance, or if the Source current is relatively high.

.99

the gist of 'evolvable' hardware is simple enough. the configuration bits that program the wiring and circuitry of the fpga become the 'chromosomes' of the individuals to undergo the trial of survival of the fittest. the chip is configured, then set to do some task (like applying various settings at the gate, or something else), and its performance is measured. then the bit streams representing the best-performing configurations are mated together, mutations are added, and new individuals are tested, measured, and either discarded or mated. eventually, a configuration should emerge that’s very good at accomplishing a specific task, albeit might take thousands of generations to appear.

the beauty of it is, that you can use the fpga's as blank evolutionary 'slates' and let evolution fiddle around with the fine details. ie: you can create without any preconceptions built in. so, it’s not told anything about what is 'good' and what is 'bad' or how it achieves the behavior. evolution just plays around making changes, and if the changes produce an improvement, then fine. it doesn’t matter whether it’s changing the circuit design or using just about any weird, subtle bit of physics (note: this doesn't work on the simulation fpgas, only hardware fpgas) that might be going on. the only thing that matters to evolution is the overall behavior. this means you can explore all kinds of ways of building things that are completely beyond the scope of conventional methods. allow evolution to write all the design rules.

i hope that helps elucidate, i can be rather terse at times and expect people to 'see' what i see. it's a character flaw.

Hi Wilby.  This sounds really interesting.  I'm afraid I'm absolutely not equal to this.  But if you or anyone else is - then I think we'd all be riveted.  How fascinating.  Sort of allowing chance to determine an optimised design.  I see now why you refer to it as 'evolving'.  How extraordinary.  Let us know if you can rally the right expertise.

Kindest regards,
Rosie