Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Hope]

I am having a glitch here on getting this to you all.   I feel all gains in magnetics and other physics happen occur when beta decay happens and either a proton or neutrino are created.
AND I am happy to see your postings again Rosey.     Island life has changed, gotten closer to a the gospel and this is good for me.

[Hope]

I know my realization on this point seems off topic but truely I feel it is what is happening at the sub atomic particial level on every device that achives over unity.    Fermi was correct in his assumptions that this transmutation happened in the same exact space and time, but instantly a  ( gap ) zero point is created between the new particials.   

[poynt99]

Hello Twin.  I missed this entirely.  Ideally what's needed is a strong negative signal applied continuously at the gate - but with that transposed condition of the MOSFETs.  Actually from Poynty's hard work here - it seems that we don't need that many put in parallel.  And if you hold fire there - it's also possible that we don't need a functions generator at all.  Let's see what our boffins come up with.  I really am not qualified to answer this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent, the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode. This renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.

So, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.

.99

[poynt99]

I've previously mentioned that there is one more simplification that can be made in this progression from the original 5-MOSFET circuit. Actually, there is another that I saw today.

I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can see either or both of these additional simplifications. Anyone?

There hasn't been much technical feedback since I posted the simplified schematic. Does everyone understand the circuit, and generally agree with the equivalence of the single-MOSFET version?

Don't worry about asking if you are unsure about something. There are probably others with the very same question.

.99

Edit: deleted extraneous word.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent, the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode. This renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.

So, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.

.99

Ok Poynty Point.  Here's my take.  Let me know if it's wrong.   Through a miracle of misapplication - through the most fortunate of accidents - I set up the circuit with the Gate transposed directly onto the source rail.  Through a second miracle of good timing I'm now using a functions generator and it is able to apply a negative signal.  A combination of both these events induces a 'hitherto' unknown negative potential to develop through the circuit?

Now.  Clearly - that is not the only way to 'expose' this current.  You and others are working on more ways to get the job done.  Which is a very good thing.  And nor is it the only way to expose the benefit in this back emf.  Bear in mind that the traditional one MOSFET plus spike - does the job.  But it's restricted to the tolerances of that transistor.  And - historically - these are not set at a required high value. 

As I see it - traditional understanding of that 'spike' is that it's stored energy.  But under these new applications it appears to become an energy supply source - all on its own.  So.  The questions are 'what' and 'why'?  All I know is that if I have the circuit fully connected - yet I leave the functions generator off - then there is absolutely NO current flow.  That generator acts to provide a 'bridge' which, in turn, then closes that gap and thereby closes the circuit.  That applied signal is positive.  And it's applied to the drain of the circuit. This then allows the flow of positive current.

Then - back to that accident.  The signal then defaults to 'negative'.  But now - just as that earlier 'Positive' signal closed the loop to let the battery deliver it's current flow at the drain - we then see that there has been a hidden source of negative current flow that is now fully enabled.  And that negative signal also closes the loop to allow that negative current to  'bridge the gap' at the source.  And this allows the flow of a negative current.  We know negative current flow cannot be coming from the battery.  And our numbers prove that nor is it coming from the generator. 

So.  What I think has actually happened is that the negative component was always there - but was, traditionally 'SNUFFED' as it was never required and certainly never anticipated.  And I propose that this is that energy in the material of the circuitry - that I rather hoped was there from the get go.  And that - only because it conformed to the thesis prediction.  In other words it's gross evidence of the fact - where under traditional applications it was not.

Is that fair comment? 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

edited