Please get to your point.

The point is you don't know how to read a simple schematic.  I think this discussion is done.

Gravock

Thank you.


You stated this:
and this:

And you've since agreed that the FG- is connected to the Q2 "g" and that "g" stands for "Gate". You've also ow agreed that the FG+ is connected to the Q2 "s" and that "s" stands for "Source. This is in direct contrast to your prior two statements. The prior two were incorrect.

I expect you may wish to revise your above statements and reconsider your understanding of the circuit operation based on this new information.

Knowing how the FG is connected to the MOSFET is critical to understanding its operation, and knowing what polarity from G-S is required to turn t

he MOSFET ON is also critical.

It took a while to get in here.  There's a serious loop back number on Harti's new system.  I could NOT get past the home page.  And I know I'm not the only one who experiences this occasionally. You may want to look into it Harti.  If and when.

In any event.  Poynty Point.  WHAT are you going on about?  The CIRCUIT, AS REPRESENTED IN OUR PAPER, IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  Here's the thing that I THOUGHT you were fixated on.  But it appears to have eluded you.  THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SOURCE OF Q2's LEG AND THE SOURCE OF THE CIRCUIT.  It's NOT CONNECTED TO THE COMMON SOURCE RAIL OF THE CIRCUIT. It floats. That nonsense about Q1 gate and source and the rest?  Good heavens.  And all this time I thought you were preparing some argument based on an oversight.      Frankly I was alarmed.

Let me say this again.  THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THAT CIRCUIT OF OURS.  NOT ANYWHERE.  The Probe is positioned on the GATE of Q1 which is a rail shared with the SOURCE OF Q2.  It's simple.  What's missing is the connection between the SOURCE LEG of Q2 with the common source of the circuit.  And that's precisely the cause of that anomalous waveform.  What you need to prove is that the battery is CONNECTED during the period that the circuit is OPEN or when a Negative signal is applied to the Gate of Q1.

It is indeed CRITICAL to know how the MOSFETs are connected.  It seems to have eluded you.  So.  I'm not sure that I need that advice from you.  But all those questions?  It actually suggests that - until you extrapolated that small circuit section - that this fact had ELUDED you.  You see now why I REPEATEDLY advised that when and IF it was a positive signal applied at Q2 - then it was NOT applied to its Gate.  It was ONLY to its source.  And that source floats. 

But I'm glad you emphasised this.  It's clearly missed you - and possibly others.  It may help clarify things.

Regards,
Rosemary

I'm well aware of the need for our 'pack hunters' to bay at the 'kill'.  But it would be possibly be advisable to wait for CERTAINTY of that death - Gravock.    Just a thought.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

And may I add.  My own ability to read that circuit is NOT at question.  On the contrary.  I think that Poynty's reading it for the first time  And you may want to follow suit.  It would be way more apposite.

R

There was no 'kill'.  It was more like death by suicide. 

Gravock

Anyway guys, here's the thing.

The fact is that when the signal generator applies a negative signal at the switch at Q1 - then at that same moment it is applying a positive signal to the source of Q2.  There is no CONVENTIONAL explanation that would then allow a current to pass from the battery - back to the source - unless there were something connecting it.  There's nothing to enable this.  NIX - NADA NOTHING.  Just can't happen.  Which is why we are able to argue that the battery is INDEED disconnected from the circuit.  And then.  IF it was disconnected the oscilloscope probes would not pick up it's battery voltage.  The only voltage it could then read is the voltage across the circuit components connected via those transistor body diodes.  Which I've argued previously.  And which, thank HEAVENS Poynty has managed to draw your attention to.  I never know what needs emphasising.  But I must admit.  I thought that this much was clear.   

But we're only touching on the 'fringe' of the implications of all this.  I'm hoping that the discussion will progress to what that current may, indeed, be doing.  In any event.  I'm continually intrigued with the urgent need to deny our claims.  This is dedicated attempt.  And probably as well.  The thing is this.  It's no good reminding the world and his wife that I'm not schooled in electronics - when this is already known.  Nor is it that I'm after fame, fortune, or even Poynty's ou prize.  In fact, when our definitions are FINALLY ironed out - there is absolutely NO WAY that we claim over unity at all. We'll probably have to recuse ourselves.  The object of that paper and those tests is SIMPLY to address the question and anomalies that the circuit exposes.  And - all I have EVER tried to do is to share some rather extraordinary insights.  That there's an efficient use of energy at the end of the line is a good thing.  But whatever we're dealing with - will MOST CERTAINLY be outpaced by new and emerging technologies.  I keep saying this.  We've got nothing extraordinary.  But what we do have are some interesting insights related to 'field' physics - that may be worth exploring.  That's why I spend all this time at the key board.  Because that is really interesting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

   

Hi Rosie Glad to see your battling the powers that be again good luck with that. On another note the professor jones has made a comment for you under his post 8times more out. all the best ron

Hope - as ever.  Nice to see you dipping in here - and there.  I'll check it out.  But right now I need to get some sleep.  It's been another allnighter.
Always a pleasure, and take care

Rosie

Rosemary,

Are you saying that you do not see the clear contradiction between your previous statements about how the FG is connected to the Q2 MOSFET, when compared to all the statements you agreed to on that long journey we just finished?

Is it true you are still insisting that the FG- is connected to the Q2 Source?

Rosemary,

Are you saying that you do not see the clear contradiction between your previous statements about how the FG is connected to the Q2 MOSFET, when compared to all the statements you agreed to on that long journey we just finished?

Is it true you are still insisting that the FG- is connected to the Q2 Source?

OH DEAR GOD.  Poynty this is getting beyond boring.  Let me ask you something.  DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE SOURCE LEG OF Q2 is CONNECTED TO COMMON SOURCE OF THE CIRCUIT?  ALTERNATIVELY - DID YOU REALISE  THAT THE SOURCE LEG OF Q2 is not connected to the common source?  IT relates to that 'COMMONALITY' that you mentioned earlier?  I'm too bored to find your post on this.  NOW.  That's also an easy question.  And it is considerably less ambiguous than your own.   And unlike your's -it's also PERTINENT.  I ASSURE YOU.  There are ABSOLUTELY NO MISREPRESENTATIONS in that CIRCUIT OF OURS.  I've circulated it to all the collaborators.  And WE STAND FIRM.  That source leg of Q2 FLOATS.  My concern was ONLY that there was some hidden connection that I'd overlooked.

Regards,
Rosemary

Dear heavens, Guys

This is how Poynty et al manage to steer the conversation away from what's needed.  The technique is this.  Harass the claimant with questions - pertinent or otherwise.  By the way you frame those questions you will be able to imply an INTRINSIC FLAW in their logic.  That way there is NO NEED to explain anything at all.  You simply manage to spread confusion and all the while it seems that you have some insight that you are under no obligation to SHARE. 

It's a TECHNIQUE.  Surely, by NOW - you realise that we're all onto it?  It's really WORKABLE Poynty Point - provided ONLY that the public are not aware of it.  WE ARE.  All of us.  The schematic speaks for itself.  It CONFORMS to our CIRCUIT.  NOW.  AGAIN.  WHERE is the SOURCE LEG OF q2 CONNECTED TO THE common source rail of the circuit?  LET US KNOW.

Rosemary