Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 896192
  • *Total Topics: 15779
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 19
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 761515 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #165 on: January 18, 2012, 06:34:48 AM »
FYI,

"Gate" and "Vgs" (voltage gate-to-source) and "Source" is not my terminology. It has existed since the time MOSFETs came to being.

A MOSFET is considered ON when a significant current can pass through from the Drain to Source leads. This is standard electrical theory of operation of MOSFETs, not my invention. Now, this current is current that is flowing through the MOSFET channel, NOT through the parasitic Drain-Source (body) diode.

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #166 on: January 18, 2012, 06:39:48 AM »
Dear Poynty,

I have no objection to the use of the terms "Gate" and Vgs (voltage gate -to-source) and "source".  I am well aware of the fact that they were not invented by you.  Nor is that what I asked.  You asked me - from memory - 'what voltage TURNED ON the switch at the gate'?  My question stands.  WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'TURNING ON'?

Let me try this again.  Is the MOSFET ON when it's OPEN or ON when it's closed?  was my question

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie


FYI,

"Gate" and "Vgs" (voltage gate-to-source) and "Source" is not my terminology. It has existed since the time MOSFETs came to being.

A MOSFET is considered ON when a significant current can pass through from the Drain to Source leads. This is standard electrical theory of operation of MOSFETs, not my invention. Now, this current is current that is flowing through the MOSFET channel, NOT through the parasitic Drain-Source (body) diode.

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

edited - for clarification.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #167 on: January 18, 2012, 06:48:27 AM »
And lest we lose touch with some of my own questions - here they are again.

Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...
Once again, nice try Rosemary.
I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time.  What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim.  Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments -  AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved  :o
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current  ???
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply  :-[
.    In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply  ::)
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow  :'(
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over  8)
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols  :o
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative  :'(
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy  :-X
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage  :-[
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference  8)
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence  8) 8)
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.  :o 8) :'(


 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

So.  In the light of this comment from you...
My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.
then my problems are manifold.  If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data.  And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world.  And that's where our paper is focused.  Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize.  You see for yourself.  I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...
Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.
I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.  INDEED.  I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE.  But you see this Poynty Point?  What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence?  You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math.  And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this.  It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty.  We're trying to progress this technology.  It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #167 on: January 18, 2012, 06:48:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #168 on: January 18, 2012, 06:52:05 AM »
With regard to your terminology, "ON" would be "CLOSED" (a path to conduct current).

"OFF" is therefore "OPEN" (no, or very limited path to conduct current).

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #169 on: January 18, 2012, 06:54:51 AM »
Well then?  Where has this been challenged in our paper? 

With regard to your terminology, "ON" would be "CLOSED" (a path to conduct current).

"OFF" is therefore "OPEN" (no, or very limited path to conduct current).

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #169 on: January 18, 2012, 06:54:51 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #170 on: January 18, 2012, 07:03:04 AM »

So what polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

.99

I think I'm beginning to see the THRUST of you question here Poynty point.  Well.  What can I say?  If I say that it's the applied voltage that determines the 'on' or 'off' condition of the MOSFET - then I'll have to also argue how it is that MOSFET can conduct a current from a positive voltage at all while it is open - or as you call it - OFF?  I've explained this in that second part of our 2-part paper.  And I've found the solution in the imposition of a 'charge property' to current itself.  That entirely resolves the issue.  Please feel free to read it.

Else - in the light of the experimental evidence there is no REASONABLE explanation how it can conduct - considering that both switches are 'open' or 'off' as you put it.

Again,
Regards,
Rosie Pose

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #171 on: January 18, 2012, 02:26:48 PM »
What's required to answer the question above, is a choice between two words:

a) POSITIVE

b) NEGATIVE

What is your choice?

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #171 on: January 18, 2012, 02:26:48 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #172 on: January 19, 2012, 12:52:02 AM »
My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #173 on: January 19, 2012, 01:30:49 AM »
Rosemary,

Is something distracting you from the question at hand, or are you simply trying to avoid answering it by indulging in such rhetoric? Here it is again, all in one nice package:

What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

Or put in a manner more conducive to your terminology: What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to close the switch in the MOSFET ?

What is necessary to answer the above question, is a choice between two words:

a) POSITIVE

b) NEGATIVE

What is your choice?


.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #173 on: January 19, 2012, 01:30:49 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #174 on: January 19, 2012, 01:37:36 AM »
Dear Poynty,

Can you read?  I've answered you.

Rosie

Rosemary,

Is something distracting you from the question at hand, or are you simply trying to avoid answering it by indulging in such rhetoric? Here it is again, all in one nice package:

What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to allow significant current through the MOSFET channel (not the body diode)?

Or put in a manner more conducive to your terminology: What polarity of voltage on the "Gate" lead (with respect to the "Source" lead) of an N-channel MOSFET is required in order to close the switch in the MOSFET ?

What is necessary to answer the above question, is a choice between two words:

a) POSITIVE

b) NEGATIVE

What is your choice?


.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #175 on: January 19, 2012, 01:45:45 AM »
Dear Poynty,

Can you read?  I've answered you.

Rosie

 ??? Could one of the three readers here please copy the post where Rosemary answered the question with either POSITIVE or NEGATIVE as the response? My computer seems to be having some trouble displaying it.

Thanks,
.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #175 on: January 19, 2012, 01:45:45 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #176 on: January 19, 2012, 01:57:02 AM »
My dear Poynty Point,

You really need to brush up on your math.  You seem to be confusing the number of readers on your own forum with the numbers of readers at this thread.  Either that, or with that characteristic disregard to for established protocols you've invented a new method of counting.  Pay heed Poynty.  As in all things.  You need to define your terms.

In any event, let me oblige you.

As ever,
Rosie Pose


My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #177 on: January 19, 2012, 02:10:16 AM »
The question is quite clear and specific, and requires only a single word response from a selection of two possible answers.

The specific part of the question which you don't seem to understand, is the polarity required from Gate to Source to CLOSE the MOSFET switch.

So, which is your choice pertaining to the specific mentioned?

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?

Offline tak22

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #178 on: January 19, 2012, 02:20:16 AM »
 I'm not one of the three readers, but I read it like this:
Rosie gets asked a question and asks for a definition, gets a definition, and then after oodles of words plus a few
accusations and sidesteps thrown in for good measure, tosses it back unanswered with 'conditions' if it's to be pursued.
Normally questions aren't answered this way.
tak

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #179 on: January 19, 2012, 02:22:08 AM »
NO Poynty Point.  You CANNOT demand an over simplified answer - to anything at all - and certainly NOT out of context.  THAT will be construed as being UNREASONABLE.  It may be seen as GOADING.  We are NOT in a Court of Law where a prosecutor can DEMAND a yes or no answer to a question.

I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.  If you are simply repeating this question in the hopes of taking this discussion NOWHERE - then I'm afraid I'll close of this discussion and outline the OBVIOUS conclusions to be drawn from these tactics of yours.  What ABSURDITIES you indulge.  That you can solicit a response as REQUIRED?  IN ANY CONTEXT THAT YOU DEMAND? DO YOU WANT ME TO GET TECHNICAL?  And thereby BLUFF you all that I'm better qualified than I choose to represent myself.

Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.
 
The question is quite clear and specific, and requires only a single word response from a selection of two possible answers.

The specific part of the question which you don't seem to understand, is the polarity required from Gate to Source to CLOSE the MOSFET switch.

So, which is your choice pertaining to the specific mentioned?

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?

Regards,
Rosie Posie
ADDED

 

OneLink