If you are saying that battery chemistry (and hence a physical "battery") is not a required element to produce this reverse-current effect in the circuit, then could some other DC voltage source be substituted for the battery and still have the circuit exhibit that reverse-current effect?

.99

I suppose so.  Yes.  Einstein's mass/energy equivalence requires energy in ALL material.  But.  What we're exploiting here is the inductive/conductive condition of circuit material.  Provided it can respond to a voltage imbalance - or provided it can allow a path for current flow - then, potentially, it is capable of inducing it's own potential difference - or its own current supply - from collapsing fields - just like the battery manages.

But the amount of imbalance in the circuit material is determined by the imposed imbalance from the battery in the first instance.  It is a passive material.  It is only activated by that imposed imbalance from the current flowing through it.  The battery is only passive when it has FINALLY manged to alter ALL the electrolytes to neutralise that mix.  In other words it can offer a continuous imbalance.  The circuit - in response - cannot.  It balances out in a heartbeat.  But this redistributes that charge that it is now 'back at the battery' and ready to discharge.

Think of the energy from the battery as a kind of air pressure that gets concentrated at the source every time the circuit discharges its potential difference.  And then when it discharges that energy again - then the concentration of that wind is back with the circuit material - and so on.  It came from the battery - then it's returned to the battery by the force of a second wind from the circuit material.  And those two winds actually never mix and marry.  They just stay separate. 

I've got a sketch of this somewhere.  I'll try and find it.  But it's represented - more correctly - as lines of magnetic dipoles.  Hang ten.

I'll have to look for this in the morning.  Can't find it in this light.

Sorry,
Regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary,

What voltage and frequency do you need to replace the function generator?  Pure sinewave or other waveform here?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

No.  What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator.  But I'm on such wobbly ground here.  I shouldn't have mentioned it probably.  I have NO idea what the circuit showed.  But we'll post it when we've got something more stable.  Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation.  But no benefits.  I think they're looking to modify the circuit. 

Probably shouldn't have mentioned it.  You'll need to be patient.  I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.

Regards,
Rosemary

I've got something slightly better than the above in the works.

Hang on to your chairs, as my friend Professor Lewin would say.

.99

From the original "as-built" connections, I've analyzed the circuit and performed a bit of reverse engineering to come up with the underlying circuit and schematic. No function generator is required (similar to the above diagram I posted) for oscillation, only a second DC source capable of adjusting from about 3V to 10V.

In general, only a single MOSFET is required. Q1 is never in conduction and simply provides "negative" feedback via its body diode and channel capacitance for the Gates of Q2-Q5 (or just Q2 as I have shown).

Many questions and objections will be raised to this I'm sure, so I will put together a brief mosaic of diagrams depicting the progression from the original to what you see below.

There is one more final step in the progression, but I'll post that later once everyone has had some time to digest this and the mosaic first.

In the mean time if there are any questions about this, I'll try my best to answer.

.99

Golly.  This is a FIRST.  A red letter day.   I wake up to all these interesting variations - and everyone moving forward with ever better designs.  This is just so wonderful.  Tears in the eyes - Poynty Point.  Hopefully and SOON I'll be entirely redundant to this exercise.  Can't wait.  It was where I was hoping to end up with the previous replication - only to discover that I actually had to salvage this from certain destruction.  It needs lateral thinkers and some real skill.  Sorely lacking in it's earlier presentations.

I can't impose your designs here Poynty.  But I'll send all involved a copy of your posts.  I have a sneaking suspicion that they're moving in the same direction.  Thank you for this.  I see how valuable is the use of simulations.  I'm also still blown away that simulators even show a benefit. 

Now Poynty.  If you were to do some marginal editing on your blog - then I believe I could almost retire - and retire happily.  I think I've covered just about everything that I can.  All that's now needed is to try and get our academics to take note.  And there are two such coming early next month.  So.  And HOW NICE IS ALL THIS?!?!

I'll wade through and see if there are any outstanding questions. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie   

ADDED   
and for clarity - it represents an emotional roller-coaster waveform.  One full cycle with an average ending round about here.

 

Hi Rosemary,

What voltage and frequency do you need to replace the function generator?  Pure sinewave or other waveform here?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hello Twin.  I missed this entirely.  Ideally what's needed is a strong negative signal applied continuously at the gate - but with that transposed condition of the MOSFETs.  Actually from Poynty's hard work here - it seems that we don't need that many put in parallel.  And if you hold fire there - it's also possible that we don't need a functions generator at all.  Let's see what our boffins come up with.  I really am not qualified to answer this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Professor Walter Lewin?  He is a great guy and MIT is lucky to have him.

Bill

Bill, - he's got some really interesting thinking related to Faraday vs Kirchhoff.  And he argues that Faraday TRUMPS kirchhoff every time.  Which is certainly NOT classical.  Poynty et al discussed this at some length on his forum. 

I agree.  Nice to see that we still have independent thinkers amongst our learneds.  He's up there.

Kindest regards,
Rosie.