I don't detect any attempt by Ainslie to respond to the Pop Quiz items. Maybe she's sleeping in class again. Sherry in the mornings will do that to you; you are not as young as you used to be, are you Ainslie.

Well, too late, Ainslie child, you flunked. Try paying more attention. Coming to class regularly, shutting up and paying attention,  and asking appropriate questions will help you understand your topic; insulting and shouting down your teachers with your deluded ideas about how things _should work to support your "thesis"_ will not. Doing a little homework on your own, or with a local or internet tutor, will also help. If you ever want to get a real scientific publication on your CV... you will have to buckle down, change your attitude, and LEARN SOMETHING FOR A CHANGE.

http://youtu.be/kWpzpgNnzew

Yes, but what it really illustrates is the utter ignorance, stupidity and arrogance of Rosemary Ainslie... who accuses me of FAKING the demonstrations. The first one she thinks I used a stored waveform !! The second one she can't quite figure out how I'm doing it but she's sure it must be fake. I don't think she's seen the latest one yet.  It's HILARIOUS seeing her twisting in the wind. Just as I predicted, she will not accept ANY evidence no matter how clearly presented, no matter how simple-minded and easy FOR ANYONE TO TRY FOR THEMSELVES, if it's contrary to her "thesis" it's wrong, by definition. Ainslie's an arrogant fool, and she's not even a good liar, because her lies are so transparent and she winds up contradicting herself frequently.

With every rant that rejects reality she emits, she puts herself down more and more. She is in the position of having to see that her whole effort, her whole being, practically, over the last fourteen or sixteen years has been a futile chasing of smoke and mirrors. There is no "there" there at all. That has got to be extremely depressing for her. What will happen when Donovan Martin or Steve Weir tells her that my demonstrations are 100 percent honest and that anyone can repeat them for themselves and get the exact same results? What will she say IF she manages to learn that the common gate amplifier has been known and used for many many years, with never a hint of OU? I imagine she has to be defending her ego very strongly right now. That old cognitive dissonance is ringing her bell. Ask not, Ainslie, for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee, child, it tolls for thee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_gate

In electronics, a common-gate amplifier is one of three basic single-stage field-effect transistor (FET) amplifier topologies, typically used as a current buffer or voltage amplifier. In this circuit the source terminal of the transistor serves as the input, the drain is the output and the gate is connected to ground, or "common," hence its name.

The image below is from the Wiki article. Look familiar, there, Little Miss Mosfet?

Ains-lie, you "dare not deliberately misrepresent anything?" Then why do you do it all the time, then? Why have you misrepresented, just yesterday, the location that you ALWAYS used for the Black FG lead? I found photos of every apparatus you have used since 2009 that show the Black FG lead positioned exactly where you MISREPRESENTED that it was not, you liar, and the proof is up above in this thread. Many of the proofs are in YOUR OWN PHOTOS. I certainly don't have to work very hard at all to demonstrate that you misrepresent things every day, and if it's not deliberate.... then you need to get your medication adjusted, because you are hallucinating again.

And my anger at you, Rosemary Ains-lie, is not fake. It is real, and it is only the fact that I am a gentleman that I don't _really_ give vent to my true feelings about you and your lies. All the years of your insults and lies are coming back to you now, because these last few days of your ignorant and accusatory comments show to the Whole World that you haven't got a clue, you haven't got a clue that you haven't a clue, and that people should stay away from you because you don't know what the hell you are doing. You are a menace, Rosemary Ainslie, a destroyer of reputations. Donovan Martin will never be able to live down his association with you; you made him LIE FOR YOU many times and I've posted the proofs of that already. That's reprehensible, beneath contempt.

I dare you: Sit with Donovan Martin OR ANYONE YOU LIKE and watch my last three videos. Or just the two. Then break out your damned digital oscilloscope, if you haven't broken it already, and DO THE TEST YOURSELF. It will work for you just as it works for me and for anyone else who can actually wire a circuit. But you will not and YOU DARE NOT, because you do know, or fear, in the dark depths of your malign and mendacious soul.... that I am right and you are wrong. Haven't you noticed that nobody, not even chessnyt or gmeast, supports your "analysis" of my videos directed at your issues? What do you think the reason for that might be?  Never mind, I know that you do not think.

This is just too good to let it pass by without further analysis. My demonstration here "refers".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

And here is what the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie has to say about the demonstration:

Then he tells us to 'watch this' when he cuts Q1 OUT OF THE CIRCUIT.  COMPLETELY.  A very dramatic moment.  Golly.  That's at the 5.09 minute mark.  The CULMINATION OF HIS ARGUMENT. 

Not quite the CULMINATION, yet, Ainslie. Just an illustration, yet another one, that your claims are utterly FALSE and that you don't have a clue about mosfet operation in general or in the particular application of the Common Gate Amplifier that forms half of the "Q-array" circuit.

That argument that thus far is based rather tenuously on zero measurements actually measured -

That's a lie. Just because you have chosen to ignore all the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that go into my argument, that were made by me, by Poynt99, and even by YOU.... that does not mean that they do not exist.

  and a 'flimflam' of nonsense related to the scalability of those voltages. 

The only "flimflam" of utter nonsense is coming from YOU, the Great Scientist Troll, Rosemary Ainslie. You cannot provide any support for your idiotic claim that my demonstrations ANY OF THEM are "nonsense" in any way.

Quite frankly, dear Reader - I'm rather surprised.  Consider where we're at here.

Yes indeed--- consider where we are "at" here.

He's definitely CUT OUT Q1. 

Finally a bit of correct statement from Ainslie. Stop the presses! Sound the trumpets! Toss the confetti! Open the champagne!
Ainslie has typed something that is actually TRUE for a change!

And we've got his function generators' terminal - STILL CONNECTED AT THE WRONG PLACE ON THE BACK END OF THE SENSE RESISTOR. 

The very same WRONG END that ROSEMARY AINSLIE AND DONOVAN MARTIN HAVE ALWAYS ALWAYS USED UNTIL THE AUGUST 11, 2013 DEMONSTRATION.

And to entirely confuse the issue - we've ALSO got the PROBE from that function generator applying a negative signal to NOTHING BUT the SOURCE RAIL of the circuit.

That's right--- it entirely and utterly confuses the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie, because she is completely and totally ignorant of her chosen topic and the well-studied configuration of the simple mosfet Common Gate Amplifier.

  is that clear?  The terminal and the probe are now in series.

Perhaps she means that the FG's Red and Black wires form a series circuit with the main battery, the load and the FG when the Q2 transistor is "on" and oscillating. Unfortunately for ALL HER MEASUREMENTS IN THE TWO DAFT MANUSCRIPTS, the current sense resistor is NOT in this series circuit and so does not monitor an extremely critical parameter. ALL the data, every jot and tittle of it, that Ainslie has published before August 11, 2013, is invalid because of this misconnection, deliberate I believe, of her current sense scope probes.

 And yet?  We see a CLEAR evidence that there's absolutely NO variation to that oscillation?  Presumably and technically the function generator CAN deliver a signal anywhere you put it.  So IF during this period it's applying a positive signal - to the negative rail of the battery supply - that point that it shares the common node with the two scope terminals?  Then?  CONVERSELY it would be applying a NEGATIVE signal to the directly to the source rail of Q2.  Because Q1 is UNARGUABLY DISCONNECTED.

All Hail the Great Scientist! She makes another correct observation. Will wonders never cease? Perhaps she has actually learned to magnify her screen and to listen to what someone is telling her instead of talking over them and misstating what they have said to her.

  Is THIS the cause of that oscillation?   Surely NOT.

ROFL! SURELY SO, naive ignorant Ainslie child, and anyone with the equipment can test it for themselves, and anyone with an internet connection and a computer-- and basic research skills, which you are sorely lacking -- can see myriads of correct explanations for the phenomenon of FEEDBACK OSCILLATIONS IN A COMMON GATE AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT.

It can't be.

And why not? Because it goes against the Great Scientist's "thesis" that's why not, and because the Great Scientist has neglected to learn anything about how mosfets DO work. This, in spite of three years of video demonstrations which she has ignored, millions of words of actual confirmable explanations from many different people and many different sources on the internet. A clearer display of willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance I have never seen.

Because that oscillation stays true and it certainly HAS NOT CHANGED.  ANYWHERE.  AT ALL.  Not by one iota.  Hasn't 'turned a hair'.  Still the same.  EXACTLY the same as it was in the previous minute.

Can this be true? The Great Scientist has made YET ANOTHER CORRECT OBSERVATION. This is earth-shaking, being the very first time in history that Ainslie has said three true things in one post.

That's TRULY miraculous.

INDEED it is, but not for the reasons you think, o Great Scientist.

Perhaps Mark Euthansius can give us an explanation for this.  I think HE was the one who called for this test.

And he has already done so many times, as have many other people. Just because you cannot see the Eiffel Tower from your backyard in Cape Town does not mean that it does not exist, or that other people have not seen and understood it for what it is.

  It's AMAZING.  Quite simply INCREDIBLE.

I knew you would be amazed, and I predicted that you would not believe it, and ONCE MORE I AM RIGHT.

The very first evidence anywhere that a function generator can deliver a signal through its TERMINAL while its PROBE stays precisely in series with that both that terminal and not the GATE - NOTA BENE - BUT the source leg of Q2.

WRONG AGAIN, Ainslie, you lying troll. I've done this same demonstration for you at least six times since 2012, and the Common Gate Amplifier is no mystery to those who know their subject.

  The usual point at which to apply a signal is at the GATE of a MOSFET.  And the ONLY gate available for that signal is NOW GONE.  CUT OUT.  VANQUISHED.  It's extraordinary.  I can't for the life of me think of an explanation. 

More true statements. Will wonders never cease!  Ainslie cannot for the life of her, think, or follow a logical argument, or believe the evidence of her own eyeballs if it contradicts her "thesis".

Unless, of course, he's simply showing us a signal that he stored on that scope shot from the previous setting.  But FAR be it from me to show up our Little pickle as a liar and a cheat.  That would hardly be ladylike.

And here we have the CRUX of the matter. The Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie would rather accuse me of CHEATING by doing something that is really impossible without additional equipment not in evidence -- showing a stored waveform on a 40 year old, low-end analog scope -- than getting up off her scrawny duff to make a phone call or two, or HEAVEN FORBID she would actually deign to do the silly, ten-minute experiment HERSELF. Perhaps the Great Scientist, the expert metrologist Rosemary Ainslie, can tell us how a STORED WAVEFORM can be varied in real time by changing the FG settings, as I do in that portion of the video after I cut out the Q1. Even her LeCroy, even the 30,000 dollar Tek scope that I used for Tar Baby's play dates, can't do that.

  Rather let our more qualified Readers who dip in here - establish the truth for themselves.  IF you need to.

I see the facepalms happening throughout the world. YES ! I wholeheartedly invite ANYONE at all to "dip in here", watch my demos and check my references, perform the experiments for themselves. Just be sure to tell the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie what your findings are.

Personally I think it justifies a good laugh - rather than any further investigation.

So says the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslile! Of course you don't want any further investigation into anything that shows that your claims are false, your data are fabrications and your conclusions are based on stupid math errors performed on the fabricated data. However, we lesser scientists, who don't already know everything,  prefer to perform experiments that actually test well-formed hypotheses, and we CHECK OUR WORK before releasing it publicly, and we CORRECT ERRORS when they are demonstrated, and we DO NOT ALLOW OUR NAMES to appear on "publications" which contain fabricated data and bogus claims culminating in demonstrably false conclusions.

Now watch the next two videos showing some more things that the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie will tell you I am faking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilT3LRF0hUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpzpgNnzew

OK, here's one:

Displaying Stored Waveforms from the Tektronix 2213A Analog Oscilloscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcHg5gGB5xk

Ahhh.... you got me.

That's what happens when you do YouTube demonstrations.... there is always someone who knows the material and can provide a _proper_ analysis of what is being demonstrated.

(Too bad my printer is out of ink. I would have taped a printout of the screen to the scope.)



BTW, I would sure like to find a (free) copy of the Manual for this Epic Instruments WaveSaver. Internet searches have not yielded anything. Any ideas? (The outputs are on the back panel; it doesn't just "eat" waveforms without spitting them back out.)

Note that she still persists in her fantasies and false claims! The person will NEVER be able to understand the operation of her "own" circuit, because she refuses to look at the references that prove her wrong and explain the situation correctly!

THE BATTERY IS NEVER DISCONNECTED, silly child Ainslie. THE Q2s ARE NEVER DISCONNECTED. THE FG  DOES INDEED provide the necessary connection and this has been proven to you over and over and over again. The currents you think you "measure" and that I have also shown present no danger to even YOUR namby-pamby FG under the operating conditions you prefer. You are willfully ignorant of the explanations and proofs and you refuse to perform any real experiments to test your own claims. You could not even design such an experiment.... yet I have presented them to you in various forms since 2009. Your ignorance is no excuse for your.... IGNORANCE, since it is deliberate on your part.

And your misrepresentations of the role of the capacitance mentioned by MarkE and Poynt99 and the mosfet data sheet indicates that you STILL have no clue. The currents flowing through that capacitance is what really makes the _feedback_ and the phase shift that amplifiers require in order to oscillate. And since you have no clue as to how capacitors work your statements about how much current they may or may not be able to handle are just stupid handwavings, flailing about like a fish out of water, about to choke on her own spittle.

Further, you once again LIE when you claim that the high heat in your loads are produced by anything other than current running through the Q1 transistor during its ON time. And you can't have it both ways, AINS-LIE..... I either replicated your results or I didn't, make up your mind. The difference is that I DO NOT MISREPRESENT OR LIE ABOUT MY RESULTS.... the way you continuously do, as evidenced in your latest madwoman's rants. Your very last sentence is a total LIE as proven by YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS.

I swear this is like shooting fish in a barrel, using a 12 ga shotgun.

I just made another video that the Great Scientist will refuse to watch. I used a slightly different method to make the same points.

Method:
I put a 1 ohm wirewound "concrete" power resistor in series with my "kelvin probe" noninductive 1 ohm resistor soldered directly to the leads of a scope probe. These resistors are in strict series and so, obviously, will have the exact same _true_ current flowing through them. I placed this setup on the negative terminal of the run battery stack. Initially I used only two batteries. I isolated the FG's outputs from the chassis ground by using the F43's Isolation Switch. I connected another scope probe across the ordinary resistor, so now I have two channels each of which should show the same current IF the currents are really there. Right? Neither probe is attenuated, both are used in the '1x' position and both channels of the scope are set to 2 volts per vertical division. I hooked the FG outputs up exactly as before, with the Black output at the battery negative terminal and the Red output to the mosfet Source pin, where NOTHING ELSE is connected. I then turned up the amplitude of the FG and I show that the non-inductive resistor's indicated current is _much smaller_ than that indicated by the probe on the ordinary wirewound resistor.
Then I moved the FG Black lead to the correct side of the CVR assembly and showed the same thing.

Then I hooked up all six batteries in series to make a nominal 72 volt supply, actually measured over 74 volts, and repeated the demonstration using the higher voltage supply. Since the FG Red lead is the ONLY thing connected to the Source pin of the single mosfet, all the currents in the circuit MUST flow through the FG itself which is in strict series with the entire 74 volt power source.  In spite of the Great Scientist's squawkings .... the only thing that exploded was her brain.

The video will take a little while to process and upload, maybe two hours. I have to splice the segments together and go through 2 transcoding stages then the upload time. The demonstration itself took less than ten minutes.


Parts and instruments used:

IRFPG50 mosfet (one)
1 ohm non-inductive resistor, Ohmite WNER50FE
Xicon wirewound power resistor 1 ohm 5 watt
Dale 5 ohm 20 watt wirewound resistor (load) HL-20-02Z-5
Fluke 83 DMM to check resistances
Interstate F43 Sooper Dooper FG
Tektronix 2213A magic oscilloscope
6 ea. 12 volt, 5 A-H Sealed Lead Acid batteries, fully charged

Hypotheses tested:

1) If a non inductive Kelvin-probe resistor and an ordinary resistor with the same values are used to sense the same currents, they should read the same IF the currents they are measuring are real. On the other hand, IF inductances have a significant role in creating illusory voltage amplitude readings, the non-inductive resistor should read considerably lower than the ordinary resistor when measuring the same currents.

2) If the high currents inferred by looking at the voltage drop across the more inductive CVR are REAL, on the order of ten amps or more, this might put the FG at risk of failure. On the other hand, IF the measurement is spurious, then there aren't those high currents flowing through the FG at all and it is safe.

Results:
The non-inductive Kelvin probe gave much lower voltage drop readings for the same currents, than did the ordinary resistor/scope probe arrangement. The two probes were measured simultaneously in a series arrangement so that the identical current was in both probes at the same time. This result was true regardless of the Black FG lead location or the number of batteries in the supply.
The 74 volt battery supply did not damage anything. The load resistor was observed to be very slightly over ambient temperature after the 72 volt trial but remained at ambient during the 24 volt trial.


Conclusion:
The Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie is not so great after all, as every one of her predictions has been proven FALSE and in fact, silly and stupid.