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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 939471 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #630 on: February 11, 2012, 08:58:08 AM »
Gravock - I'm amazed that you're in agreement with any part of what's written.  I'm knee deep in my justification of the disconnected state of the Q2 MOSFETS.  I'll need to finish that and will get back here.  I think I'll need to post over more of the paper before we get to nitty gritties.  BUT I'M DELIGHTED THAT YOU'RE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THIS.  I had no idea that anyone one at all - was seriously interested.  But I've got to finish off that ruddy argument for MileHigh et al - or I'll forever be plagued with that absurd argument that that the battery can deliver any energy at all during the off period of the duty cycle. 

Golly.  Am delighted with this.  Hopefully you'll manage the equations for us.  Someone must.  They're BADLY NEEDED.

Regards,
Rosie 

And right now I need to break off and do some shopping.  I've just seen the time.  Be back as soon s I've bought the food to feed the dogs and cooked  some lunch.  HLTT (However long that takes) and BRBST (be right back soonest thereafter) This is seriously fun for me.
Edited the edit.  Grammar.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 03:48:33 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

AbbaRue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #631 on: February 11, 2012, 09:07:42 AM »
@All:

Interesting enough this article about negative resistance circuits (Negative Resistance = Power Source)
shows circuits very simular to the Rosemary circuit!
Main difference is he used the drain instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter)
A very good article to download and study on this subject:

http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/142/pdf/lect23.pdf

From page 12 on there are a number of circuits with similar connections to Rosemary's circuit. 
Some of these could be tested to further this study. 
Based on this article and it's implications I think this subject deserves further investigation and less mockery!
After all this is a Berkeley University of California, article.
Unless someone on this forum thinks they are above this Berkeley Professor.
Rosemary may have something here!

Also wanted to mention Naudin's studies into Negative Resistance Using only 2 leads of a 2N2222A transistor.

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cnr/negosc.htm

The MOSFET "Q2" who's source is not directly connected to the battery reminds me of it. 
Further study suggests that Q2 is functioning as a MOSFET Varactor. (page 25 of Berkeley article)

I have tried replicating this circuit using following MOSFET's
BUZ11 50v 33A
IRF630 200V 9.3A
IRF820 500V 2.5A (best results)

For the heating element I used a 300W 130V halogen bulb measured at 5 ohms and 250 micro Heneries.

I used 555 timer circuit for the Oscillator input:
With variable 10k resistors across 6-7 7-8 leads, to vary the wave form output.

For the main voltage input I used two 12 V. lead acid rechargeable batteries for about 25V.

I got high voltage spikes returning to the battery when I connected an inductor in series with the halogen.
I connected a 1000v diode across the halogen so spikes would return to battery. 

I didn't get battery charging, but I found that the battery voltage went down incredibly slow for the amount of drain.
When same halogen bulb was connected directly across the batteries voltage dropped very fast.

PS: I think I will experiment with some of these Berkeley circuits.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #632 on: February 11, 2012, 04:27:55 PM »
Apologies for quoting myself but just to show the relevance of this argument that is now spanning a 3rd POST  :o
 
Gravock ... I'm knee deep in my justification of the disconnected state of the Q2 MOSFETS.  I'll need to finish that and will get back here... But I've got to finish off that ruddy argument for MileHigh et al - or I'll forever be plagued with that absurd argument that that the battery can deliver any energy at all during the off period of the duty cycle. 
 
 Regards,
 Rosie
 

NOW.  All things being EQUAL.  When we CHANGE THAT SIGNAL at the gate of Q1 -  to an applied NEGATIVE SIGNAL... continued /...from the function generator, then the circuit is again OPEN.  That NEGATIVE voltage signal applied by the signal terminal - now induces a small NEGATIVE flow of current - to the GATE OF Q1.  Which, in turn, NOW REPELS the applied current flow from the battery supply source.  Those currents are in anti phase.  The current from the battery supply CAN NO LONGER CROSS THE BRIDGE.  THE CIRCUIT IS OPEN.  NO CURRENT CAN FLOW from the BATTERY SUPPLY.   

HOWEVER.  As MileHigh keeps telling you and as POYNTY keeps pointing to - as they both seem to be staking their LIVES on this their argument, - when the positive signal at the Gate of Q1 changes to a negative, then SIMULTANEOUSLY the applied signal at the SOURCE of Q1 is NOW POSTIVE.  NOW.  LOOK AT THE CIRCUIT SCHEMATIC.  You will see that the NEGATIVE TERMINAL of the signal generator is connected to the SOURCE leg of Q1 - and then onto the SOURCE of the battery terminal.  And this is LINKED to the Gate of Q2. THEREFORE, and in TRUTH, the signal that is NOW APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q2 is POSITIVE.  THEREFORE ALSO - they are arguing - THE CURRENT FLOW FROM THE BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE IS NOW ENABLED VIA THE GATE OF Q2 IN THE SAME WAY AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENABLED AT THE THE GATE OF Q1.

I'm interrupting this argument to repost that schematic.  That we can all be on the same page.
R
GUYS this is going into LOOP MODE again. Something's seriously wrong with this software of yours Harti.  I'm hoping this AMENDMENT WILL TAKE.  I NEED TO TAKE OUT THAT WAVEFORM.  AND TRY AND POST THE CORRECT SCHEMATIC.  If I don't get back here immediately - it's because I cant.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 05:45:59 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #633 on: February 12, 2012, 01:07:07 AM »
 Hi AbbaRue,

Sorry for ’chiming in’  I could not resist to share some of my views wrt your post on negative resistance circuits.       

The lecture paper you linked shows the so called cross coupled oscillators with  devices like MOSFETs and BJTs (bipolar junction transistor) devices.  Such circuits exhibit negative resistance between the MOSFETs drains or between the BJTs collectors as a result of positive feedback.  Positive feedback results when one device’s  control electrode (i.e. the gate of the MOSFET or base of the BJT) is connected to the other device’s  drain or collector electrode and vice versa, as shown in Page 12 in your link. 

You wrote:  Main difference is he used the drain  instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter.)

  Respectfully I disagree,  it Does Matter because without positive feedback these circuits do not manifest the negative resistance between the drains or between the collectors.  Here is a link
http://www.tubecad.com/2009/07/blog0166.htm
 where the cross connection is shown between the gates and the cathodes  (of electric valves)  and here negative feedback is involved with such connections!  (I hope nobody is confused by seeing circuits with electric valves,  the cathode where electron emission happens can be viewed as the source electrode of a MOSFET or the emitter electrode of a BJT.)   These circuits are used for improving the linearity and distortion performance of (audio or other) amplifiers and this means no negative resistance creation possibility for such type of cross coupling because this would bring about oscillations at certain frequencies:  this would be a rather unwanted ’feature’  in linear amplifiers should such gate-cathode (or gate-source or base-emitter) cross coupled circuits create negative resistance.
So in Rosemary's circuit the cross coupling is shown between gates and sources of the MOSFETs and NOT between the gates and drains, hence there cannot be any positive feedback like shown in Page 12 of the paper, hence no oscillation due to negative resistance from the MOSFETs. (more on the oscillations in Rosemary circuit later below)

I have to notice also that the Naudin circuit you linked to uses a BJT in the ’inverse mode’  i.e. an NPN transistor’s emitter is biased to be positive (normally it should receive negative polarity) from a battery and its collector receives the negative battery polarity (normally it should be positive) so a reversed breakdown can happen in its C-E junction and this exhibits the negative resistance  (Cf  this with the Esaki tunnel diode or the Gunn diode etc which also have a negative resistance region  in their  voltage-current curve but by proper semiconductor doping.)   

So my note here refers to your text:  The MOSFET "Q2" who's source is not directly connected to the battery reminds me of it.  (i.e you meant Naudin’s 2N2222 circuit with its negative resistance)

So in Rosemary’s  circuit the source electrode of Q2 is indeed not directly connected to the battery but via the function generator.  I hope you agree with me that such function generators normally have 50 Ohm inner resistance so the source electrode is practically connected to the battery negative point via this 50 Ohm.  (And when a DC voltage shift is used at the output of the FG, the 50 Ohm still should be there by the FG inner circuit design, otherwise the specification for the output resistance is not fulfilled in that DC shift mode, what I doubt  so it is still 50 Ohm.  And the 50 Ohm output resistance can simply be checked by an Ohm meter part of a DMM, when the FG’s output level is turned down in the  few milliVolt range, not to fool the Ohm meter and also the DC shift feature is adjusted to zero should it be turned on.)  Can you agree with the connection of Q2’s source to the battery negative via the 50 Ohm inner resistance of the FG?

On you following single sentence:  Further study suggests that Q2 is functioning as a MOSFET Varactor. (page 25 of Berkeley article)   

I would like to notice that the varactor effect is shown between the gate and both the source and the drain electrodes (the latter two are connected together in Page 25 for both the N and P channel MOSFETs) and bias voltage for controlling the capacitance is connected to the body electrode of the MOSFET (a fourth electrode beside G, S and D) and in most power MOSFETs this fourth electrode is normally tied inside of the device to the source electrode. 

So I do not think Q2 can work as a varactor like it is shown in Page 25 BUT I can say that any MOSFET has a voltage dependent inter-electrode capacitance dependence and data sheets show this mainly for a 25V drain-source voltage and at zero gate-source control voltage and also they give a curve for all the three changing capacitances in the function of the full operational voltage range for a particular type.  And this changing inter-electrode capacitance dependence in the function of drain-source and gate-source voltages (in both AC and DC voltages' respect)  is of course true for Q1 in Rosemary's circuit as is true for any MOSFET used in any circuit.

Sorry again for mentioning these three topics in bold from your above post and share my opinion on them, I did not mean to steer up any quarrel or ’mockery’,  and I hope you or others here can agree with all the 3 notices of mine.  Of course you do not „have to” agree with me,  lol.

IT is very good you built the circuit and I would ask on your batteries’s  AmperHour  capacity, and what is the 555 pulse frequency you found perhaps the best, and how bright the halogen lamp was? i.e. any idea on its output power. 

Now briefly on Rosemary circuit oscillations:  what I think is that their battery bank is banged by heavy current pulses via the MOSFET switches and via the heater element with a frequency which corresponds to the battery bank’s resonant frequency (yes, batteries have a resonant frequency, see this link where 2 to 6MHz range is indicated for lead acid types: http://www.reuk.co.uk/Battery-Desulfation.htm ).  Because of the high current pulses, I suspect the batteries develop heat and it would be good to learn from the team what battery temperatures were involved during the hours long tests,  in their paper they mentioned the cooking  of two batteries if I recall correctly and from this I assume the high battery temperatures (unless something else happened to those two batteries.)

Also I suspect that this heavy pulse ’bombardment’ of the batteries involves creating chemical reactions inside, this may be in connection with the team’s  claim of no need for recharging during the some month long test period, of course  I hypotese here with the chemical change inside, suggesting it as beneficial.  It would be good to learn in what condition these very same batteries are now:  can they still be used as normal batteries with similar AmperHour capacity performance now that there is no test period? Have these batteries been tested since the long circuit operation weeks and months are over, it would be a must I think .
Maybe I am mistaken with this battery resonant frequency excitation;  though maybe you could increase your test frequencies in the MHz range too and check the battery temperature too (do avoid boiling though, it can be dangerous). The above link on desulfation mentions using small current pulses at the resonant battery frequency.
Your using a inductor in series with the halogen lamp means that the recovered bemf is much higher than without it, so more part of the input current is stored in that inductance wrt to  the lamp’s own 250uH inductance,  hence the high voltage spikes manifest and more part of the input energy can get back for feeding the circuit.  A notice here also that using a higher value inductor in the team’s  circuit means to alter,  to change the original or the shown circuit…

On your sentence: "When same halogen bulb was connected directly across the batteries voltage dropped very fast."   
Please notice that a direct connection is not at all equivalent to a switched connection (the latter happens via your MOSFET of course),  perhaps the best comparison in performance would involve a known quantity of water or cooking oil heating  (this latter can isolate better electrically) for a certain time, this has already been discussed but perhaps not applied correctly, I do not know. 

Thanks, 

Gyula

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #634 on: February 12, 2012, 02:20:22 AM »
The two "V"s in that circuit represent the two voltage measuring channels of an oscilloscope, do they not? The negative (ground) leads are shown connected at the same point, between the battery and the shunt resistor, as is proper. However.... unless special pains are taken, or a fully isolated scope like the Fluke ScopeMeter 199 is used, all the instrument "grounds" will be common through the instrument and line wiring itself. Thus, the Function Generator ground will also be electrically connected to the scope probe grounds back through the instrument wiring, effectively shorting out the shunt resistor, and if a voltage offset is used in the FG output things get even more problematic.

I don't know if the actual test setup that is claimed to have been used in the "experiment" had this problem... but if the circuit shown above was used, with ordinary instruments plugged into the wall, then it likely did have.

I illustrated some of the problems with this sort of cross-talk and "groundloop" in a video, as usual, long ago. The pertinent part concerning isolation starts at about 6:30; the first part is just about the Fluke and its ability to resolve short or long duty cycles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

Note that the circuit still "runs", with larger oscillations and spikes, when the battery is "disconnected" from the circuit by removing the negative power connection. What's not obvious.... unless you are careful.... is that the battery is actually STILL CONNECTED to the circuit through the earth ground and the scope and FG signal grounds.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #635 on: February 12, 2012, 02:38:52 AM »
I have just noticed these posts - from AbbaRue and Gyula.  And, indeed, just looked at Professor Niknejad's file.  Very interesting.  Not that I can understand those equations.  Now.  Gyula.  I get it that you're an authority on those MOSFETS.  And I get it that you're refuting the relevance of Niknejad's work to our own based on AbbaRue's mistaken assumption that, as he puts it - 'Main difference is he used the drain  instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter.)' which is referenced here.

...The lecture paper you linked shows the so called cross coupled oscillators with  devices like MOSFETs and BJTs (bipolar junction transistor) devices.  Such circuits exhibit negative resistance between the MOSFETs drains or between the BJTs collectors as a result of positive feedback. Positive feedback results when one device’s  control electrode (i.e. the gate of the MOSFET or base of the BJT) is connected to the other device’s drain or collector electrode and vice versa, as shown in Page 12 in your link. You wrote:  Main difference is he used the drain  instead of the source. (Theoretically that shouldn't matter.)
Unlike you I'm NOT an expert.  But it occurs to me that AbbaRue's conclusions are 'on the money'.  The fact is that those oscillations should persist IF one transposes  'P Channel MOSFET's appropriately on that circuit.  In which event the DRAIN would indeed be used instead of the source.  And I'm ENTIRELY satisfied that IF we we replaced our own with the P Channel type then we would, MOST CERTAINLY manage the same oscillations for the same extended durations.

Then with respect to this comment from a previous post on another thread.
...This means that if you have a 200V max drain-source voltage rated n-channel MOSFET, the body diode is reverse biased all the way up to 200V as long as the drain gets max 200V positive DC or peak AC with respect to the source electrode. The moment the drain voltage goes negative with respect to the source electrode, the body diode gets forward biased (if the voltage difference gets higher than 0.8-1V of course in the forward direction) so current can flow via the body diode, regardless of the control voltage between the source-gate electrodes.
Of course, if you exceed the max 200V drain-source voltage rating the manufacturer defined for a particular MOSFET type, then the device will gradually start conducting current between its drain-source path, either via the reverse biased body diode or via the drain-source electrodes, bringing the MOSFET gradually or suddenly into a destruction process.
I've highlighted the point at issue.

You are here describing our standard 'runaway' parasitic oscillation.  This is most certainly the result of paralleled transistors.  And you are also on the money.  BUT.  There is nothing STANDARD about the oscillation that our circuit manages.  In the first instance the paralleling of those MOSFETs at Q2 is not a required condition to generate that oscillation - as I've mentioned - everywhere.  And the relationship between Q1 and Q2 is absolutely NOT in parallel - as you yourself, realise.  Then the oscillation does not DEGRADE as is ALWAYS evident in a parasitic oscillation.  Then FINALLY - our MOSFETS are apparently conducting current way in excess of it's rated tolerance levels without any evident degradation at all.  And that they're still entirely in tact is really easy to demonstrate and prove.  So.  The question persists.  How is it that those transistors can conduct energy from the battery supply when the battery is NOT in a closed circuit condition?  You also seem to think that the negative terminal of the function generator can carry this relatively HIGH current flow from the gate of Q2 to the source - or as Poynty Point refers to it - to the Negative Terminal of the battery supply.  While there is INDEED a bridge between the function generator's probes - with an appropriate signal charge at Q2 - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE WAVEFORM TAKEN ACROSS THOSE TRANSISTORS THAT CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT HIGH CURRENT FLOW.  Quite apart from which, I'm in the process of arguing WHY it is that the battery CANNOT conduct.  Are my comments that irrelevant that you can simply IGNORE them?  Please bear in mind that we have what looks like a normal parasitic oscillation PERSISTING over an extended period that in, no way, compromises the material of those transistors. 

 With reference to this question to AbbaRue - if I may presume to answer it...
Can you agree with the connection of Q2’s source to the battery negative via the 50 Ohm inner resistance of the FG?
You are RIGHT.  BUT there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE OF THIS CONDUCTION IN OUR WAVEFORMS.  May I refer you to our previous waveform details.  I'll take the trouble to download this again when I've posted here.  I think that, on the whole, this entire subject is very easily dismissed if one also takes the trouble to IGNORE the evidence.  But I'm not sure that ignoring the evidence will entirely answer the questions. With respect.

Regards,
Rosemary
added

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #636 on: February 12, 2012, 02:49:16 AM »
Gyula,

Here - I hope - is the typical waveform detail.  Note the blue trace during the period when the oscillation occurs.  THAT is absolutely ALL the voltage that is evident during this period.  It is NOT reflecting the flow of high current from anywhere at all.  And ignore the file name.  It was first intended for MileHigh.  But he cannot understand the significance. Sadly.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #637 on: February 12, 2012, 02:57:53 AM »
Remember these, from hhoforvolts..... be sure to read the descriptions and hhoforvolts's comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZfkrsH_USo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfvEak7rV7g

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #638 on: February 12, 2012, 03:02:53 AM »
And here, I hope, is another example of that voltage across those transistors.  This sample is of particular interest because it results in a voltage swing at the batteries that actually take it below zero - for very brief durations.  And we all KNOW that for the battery to deliver that much energy in such brief moments - then we'd be dealing with something that could probably power entire household requirements.  So.  It's clearly NOT energy that is coming from the battery supply.

BUT please note this much.  The voltage at the switch is absolutely NOT consistent with those high voltage spikes.  Wherever it is that this current is moving from and to - it is NOT through the signal terminals - else it WOULD be evident on the voltage across those transistors.  (the blue trace)

Again,
Rosemary

added the most of this post.  Just needed to see that I'd uploaded the right file. 

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #639 on: February 12, 2012, 04:25:55 AM »
My Dear MileHigh,

The only way I 'errored'  - as Poynty puts it - is when I assumed that you had the wherewithall to understand the niceties of my argument.  I was in the process of explaining all this when I was broadsided by the unexpected though partial endorsement by Gravock for our thesis.  No sooner was that managed than AbbaRue proposed to take the circuit seriously.  Which shows a commendable impartiality which is a rare and 'wondrous' thing.  Especially given the excess of ego that usually litters this thread.  However, given a bit more time for the shock of all this this dissipate - then I'll resume that explanation.  But it will require that you read it.  Which may tax your patience.  I only assure you that you WILL be rewarded.

And, unlike others - whatever their level of credential - I am MOST happy to acknowledge when I've been on a learning curve.  The question is - are you? And your comments are valid.  I SHOULD indeed have pointed out what trace relates to what.  Abject apologies.  Here's that list.

IN ALL OUR DOWNLOADS
The blue trace is across Q1 which corresponds to the signal terminals (both) .
The Orange/yellow trace is across the shunt
The Red trace is the sum of the voltages across the shunt and the battery
The Lilac/Cerise trace is across the battery
Integrations - like the sum - usually refer to the orange and Cerise (battery and shunt - but given as voltages)


If I've left out any, then let me know.  And now, MilesUpThere - could you PLEASE take careful note of that BLUE TRACE.  Quite apart from the argument that will follow - where I will FINALLY PROVE that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the battery can be discharging any current during the 'OFF' period of those duty cycles - just NOTA BENE - as ever.  THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE OF THE BATTERY DISCHARGING THROUGH THOSE SWITCHES OR ANYWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF THOSE PROBES. You will recall that this was the cornerstone, the lynchpin of your argument. 

ALSO.  I have NEVER disputed that there is a FLOW OF CURRENT from the battery during the ON PERIOD of the duty cycle - subject to the required setting of the function generator's offset switch.  WHAT I am ACTUALLY REFERRING TO - is the manifest miracle of so much current flowing in that oscillation - DURING the OFF period of the duty cycle - when there is NO EVIDENCE of a commensurate INCREASE in the voltage across the switch.  Without this increase - then one must think?  Surely?  Where does all that current come from?  Where does all that current go?  How does it sidestep that switch?  Well.  That's what I HOPE TO EXPLAIN.  Eventually.  It's just that there are way more distractions than I can comfortably deal with.  I am, after all, merely mortal.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  I value your excessive smugness.  The more so as I hope to put a dent in it.  One day.  LOL

Rosie Pose.
 :-*

added
Highlighted the trace details

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #640 on: February 12, 2012, 04:05:25 PM »
Ok.  Hopefully I can conclude that tedious explanation of the properties in a simple N channel MOSFET and put MileHigh's - Poynty's - Professor's - Guyula's and everyone who subscribes to their argument - too many to list here - TO BED.

Now.  We're looking at a negative signal at that Gate of Q1.  And, conversely, we're looking at a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  And that positive signal is imposed on that gate of Q2 from the ground terminal of the signal generator.  In effect there is a small current imposed on that gap.  And your argument is that this then allows the current from the battery supply to cross over - piggy back a ride - directly from that gate signal to the source rail (battery negative).  Effectively the argument is that the circuit REMAINS CLOSED. 

IF this was indeed the case, then we would see a HUGE spike in the voltage across the switch, during this oscillation period, as the voltage from the battery supply would be sharing a path with this flow of current.  BUT NO ATTENDANT VOLTAGE IS EVIDENT - which was argued before.  But.  More to the point. The battery needs must first apply it's current to the drain Q2 drain - which then needs to cross that BRIDGE - Q2 gate - and THEN?  It needs to find its way to it's OWN source Q2 source - its OWN battery terminal negative.  Otherwise it will ASSUME that the circuit is still open.  And it would not discharge any current at all.

For some reason you are all ASSUMING that the battery needs only reference it's negative terminal - it's path to ground - across that bridge provided by the signal generator.  You forget that the signal generator itself is ONLY PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to that source rail or the battery's terminal THROUGH ITS OWN SIGNAL AND GROUND TERMINALS.  They are spatially SEPARATE. And what separates them is not only the resistance in the signal terminal - BUT ALSO - 1000 Ohms or thereby of resistance which applies that signal.  You are all - rather simplistically, I might add, assuming that the bridge is managed - across empty space.  LOOK AGAIN at the circuit.  The battery's connection at Q2 source is THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  There is absolutely NO OTHER CONNECTION.  That 'line' that you ASSUME is connecting Q2 gate to the battery negative - is ONLY enabling the signal - at the bridge - Q2 Gate.  It's there.  It's been PROVIDED for.  But it CANNOT BE CROSSED by the current from the battery supply - unless it sends its current across empty space, - unless it 'leap frogs' across about 4 inches of nothing at all - to reach its battery negative.  IT WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO CROSS that gap which is there on the CIRCUIT. It just cannot happen. 

Which means that it would then need to take that circuitous march through the signal's ground terminal through all that resistance in the machine itself - then through to the signal terminal itself - to get to back to it's own ground - that battery negative terminal.  Also highly improbable - as this would fry those delicate components.  I do hope that you see this.  You have all made a GROSS PRESUMPTION.  You have looked at a circuit line across two gates - and ASSUMED that this also connected the circuit apparatus.  You have ALL 'ERRORED' - to put it as Poynty puts it.  But I'm delighted to have this opportunity of putting you right.  It seems that those of us who are intellectually challenged - are still urgently required.  Else the simplicity of these components and their functions - will become unnecessarily and unduly snarled in erroneous assumptions that have nothing to do with the apparatus nor the tests at hand.

Regards,
Rosemary


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #641 on: February 12, 2012, 05:44:50 PM »
It's quite fortunate Stefan that this thread only attracts a few readers;

The sort of gibberish and rubbish being posted here by Rosemary beggars belief!

Ok.  Hopefully I can conclude that tedious explanation of the properties in a simple N channel MOSFET and put MileHigh's - Poynty's - Professor's - Guyula's and everyone who subscribes to their argument - too many to list here - TO BED.

Now.  We're looking at a negative signal at that Gate of Q1.  And, conversely, we're looking at a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  And that positive signal is imposed on that gate of Q2 from the ground terminal of the signal generator.  In effect there is a small current imposed on that gap.  And your argument is that this then allows the current from the battery supply to cross over - piggy back a ride - directly from that gate signal to the source rail (battery negative).  Effectively the argument is that the circuit REMAINS CLOSED. 

IF this was indeed the case, then we would see a HUGE spike in the voltage across the switch, during this oscillation period, as the voltage from the battery supply would be sharing a path with this flow of current.  BUT NO ATTENDANT VOLTAGE IS EVIDENT - which was argued before.  But.  More to the point. The battery needs must first apply it's current to the drain Q2 drain - which then needs to cross that BRIDGE - Q2 gate - and THEN?  It needs to find its way to it's OWN source Q2 source - its OWN battery terminal negative.  Otherwise it will ASSUME that the circuit is still open.  And it would not discharge any current at all.

For some reason you are all ASSUMING that the battery needs only reference it's negative terminal - it's path to ground - across that bridge provided by the signal generator.  You forget that the signal generator itself is ONLY PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to that source rail or the battery's terminal THROUGH ITS OWN SIGNAL AND GROUND TERMINALS.  They are spatially SEPARATE. And what separates them is not only the resistance in the signal terminal - BUT ALSO - 1000 Ohms or thereby of resistance which applies that signal.  You are all - rather simplistically, I might add, assuming that the bridge is managed - across empty space.  LOOK AGAIN at the circuit.  The battery's connection at Q2 source is THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  There is absolutely NO OTHER CONNECTION.  That 'line' that you ASSUME is connecting Q2 gate to the battery negative - is ONLY enabling the signal - at the bridge - Q2 Gate.  It's there.  It's been PROVIDED for.  But it CANNOT BE CROSSED by the current from the battery supply - unless it sends its current across empty space, - unless it 'leap frogs' across about 4 inches of nothing at all - to reach its battery negative.  IT WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO CROSS that gap which is there on the CIRCUIT. It just cannot happen. 

Which means that it would then need to take that circuitous march through the signal's ground terminal through all that resistance in the machine itself - then through to the signal terminal itself - to get to back to it's own ground - that battery negative terminal.  Also highly improbable - as this would fry those delicate components.  I do hope that you see this.  You have all made a GROSS PRESUMPTION.  You have looked at a circuit line across two gates - and ASSUMED that this also connected the circuit apparatus.  You have ALL 'ERRORED' - to put it as Poynty puts it.  But I'm delighted to have this opportunity of putting you right.  It seems that those of us who are intellectually challenged - are still urgently required.  Else the simplicity of these components and their functions - will become unnecessarily and unduly snarled in erroneous assumptions that have nothing to do with the apparatus nor the tests at hand.

Regards,
Rosemary

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #642 on: February 12, 2012, 05:57:11 PM »
In fact, the BEST way to describe Rosemary's nonsensical posts, would be to use Rosemary's own words (she's now gone back and heavily edited the post to delete the following):

Quote
Nope.  There's absolutely no logical sequence or sense to anything you've written here.  I've given it my best shot.  It lacks clarity - sense - and reason.  On the whole it reads like a shoddy piece of propagandising - rendered ineffective as it leaves the reader confused.  You need to do better.

and

Quote
More of the same.  Just a confused mishmash of illogical nonsense.  No idea what you're referring to.  No idea what your complaint is.  No idea what you're on about.  Try using sense when you use the English language.  It's meant to be a tool to advance understanding.  Not to diminish it.

It's ironic that she was directing this at recent posters here.  ::)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #643 on: February 12, 2012, 06:51:03 PM »
.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #644 on: February 12, 2012, 07:40:32 PM »
It seems that I have not been clear.  Let me try this again.

My dear Poynty Point and MileHigh,

The source rail - that leg of Q2 that requires a DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE SOURCE or the NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY - is NOT connected to that SOURCE RAIL.  It is ONLY connected to the negative terminal of the function generator.  That negative terminal of the function generator is its only path back to the common SOURCE RAIL or battery negative terminal.  Its ONLY PATH back to that battery is THROUGH the function generator and then back through the signal terminal to the SOURCE.  They are SPATIALLY SEPARATED ON OUR APPARATUS BY A GOOD 4 inches.  There is NO OTHER PATH. 

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE BATTERY TO DISCHARGE ITS CURRENT DIRECTLY ONTO THE GATE OF THE Q2.  It REQUIRES A PASSAGE from the drain leg - ACROSS THE GATE LEG - then THROUGH THE SOURCE LEG.  It cannot BYPASS it's own SOURCE LEG.  JUST CAN'T BE DONE.  And it's source leg is FLOATING.  And IF it were to borrow the signal directly from the gate through the negative terminal - it would need to find it's path through the function generator to the signal probe.  There is no other access to the negative terminal of the battery. 

Therefore, that circuit is OPEN.  The battery simply CANNOT discharge current.  NOR DOES IT.  Check out those waveforms again.  NOW.  I KNOW it can't be done.  But the evidence supports this conclusion.  IT clearly is NOT happening.  LOOK AGAIN AT THOSE BLUE TRACES.  Then tell us all how it is that all that current can be discharged WITHOUT TAKING THE VOLTAGE WAVEFORM TO ANYTHING GREATER THAN ZERO?  LOOK AT THAT OSCILLATION.  It STAYS BELOW ZERO.  IT IS BARELY MORE THAN NOISE. Yet you're trying to argue that this switch is ON?

I am reminded of those many discussions between various members and your good selves - where you DENY the facts - REGARDLESS.  I trust that there are those readers here who are aware of this technique - where denial becomes the whole of the argument.  And scorn the method of it's delivery.  Neither are scientific.

Kindest regards nonetheless.
Rosie Pose
added the point that the voltage during the oscillating phase of the switching cycle - and across the switch - is barely more than noise. Which hardly speaks to the WILD voltage swings that are evident on that circuit.