Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

Rose,

I have been able to get the circuit working again by re-introducing some wire inductance in Q2's Gate lead as shown in the new schematic attached here.

I show the "old" Vbat trace (red) just for reference.

Note the CSR probe polarity as marked on the schematic, and the resulting trace and average voltage across it.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,  Just a quick note,

Here's that circuit config.  Not sure that it makes any difference to anything at all.  Just for me it's more readable.

Take care
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose,

I have been able to get the circuit working again by re-introducing some wire inductance in Q2's Gate lead as shown in the new schematic attached here.

I show the "old" Vbat trace (red) just for reference.

Note the CSR probe polarity as marked on the schematic, and the resulting trace and average voltage across it.

.99

WELL DONE POYNTY.  Really good work.  I see now that your results aren't so beneficial.  Does it make any difference if you just up the frequency?

Anyway very well done.  We just need to show the same negative results that we're getting.  I hope they're still there somewhere.  It's officially MONDAY - so, I may l get my PC back TODAY.  Can't wait to up load some things.

Take care - and many, many thanks for the work.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Much edited guys.  I'm in dire need of sleep. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Guys,  I keep coming back to this circuit.  It's so ELEGANT.  I'm going to take the liberty of uploading it again.  Just to emphasise where I was pointing.  It's this.  It's an 'upside' down thing.  Just for once a circuit has been configured that it really CAN accommodate the negative cycle - precisely because it offers absolutely NO resistance to all that NEGATIVE current flow.  All that energy that has been hidden and frustrated in the material of the circuit itself.  It's ALWAYS been there.  It's just never been given a 'chance' to show itself - except when it could - 'accidentally', so to speak - get into parasitic oscillation.  And then, for Heaven's sake - all we ever did was our damnedest to 'snuff' it out - dampen the energy into a whole lot of added resistors.  Anything.  Just to avoid letting the system do what it most wanted to do.  All that energy.  And it's absolutely consistent with Einstein's E=mc^2.  The material really does hold that energy. 

But.  To keep to the point.  I hope there are some of you who see this.  That NEGATIVE signal applied to the Gate of Q2 - is PRECISELY the same thing as the initial energy from the battery applied to the Gate of Q1.  In effect the MOSFET now sees the applied signal from the source - as if it were a positive from the drain.  And then it moves this 'negative' current flow around the circuit with the same 'force and effect' as it first moved the positive current flow.  It's a mirror image.

It's a persistent confusion related to our traditional concepts of the properties of current that has hidden this from us - for all these years.  The MOSFET is simply doing what it was designed to do.  It takes an appropriate signal and then allows the appropriate cycle of current to move - relatively unobstructed - through the circuit as it needs to.  And it also proves that this current potential has ALWAYS been there.  Just never allowed expression - a 'voice' - so to speak.

Golly.  I hope it captivates some of you - even a fraction of how it captivates me.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
ADDED
Just for added symmetry - I would still prefer to see the signals from the function's generator applied DIRECTLY to the gates of the FETS.  Because that, in truth is what is happening.

And edited for clarification

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And for Poynty - when you get back here.  You just need to keep adding to that inductance to get it to a positive value.  And that inductance in turn, relates to the 'added' material to the circuit.  So.  It is my opinion that the actual quantity - the actual material mass of those 'inductive/conductive' components INCLUDING the wire - that allows for more or less 'returned' energy.  Therefore the mass of the circuit components comes into the equation. 

So Poynty.  Perhaps just keep adding inductance to the wires - and maybe you'll get the same results on your sim.  Worth trying perhaps?  Just know that we've actually measured the inductance on the wires to and from the battery to be 3.3 micro Henries.   And I think you can add to the inductance where you replaced the CSR - because clearly that comes into the equation.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary