another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Dear Poynty,

Can you read?  I've answered you.

Rosie

Could one of the three readers here please copy the post where Rosemary answered the question with either POSITIVE or NEGATIVE as the response? My computer seems to be having some trouble displaying it.

Thanks,
.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Poynty Point,

You really need to brush up on your math.  You seem to be confusing the number of readers on your own forum with the numbers of readers at this thread.  Either that, or with that characteristic disregard to for established protocols you've invented a new method of counting.  Pay heed Poynty.  As in all things.  You need to define your terms.

In any event, let me oblige you.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

My dear Poynty Point.

May I say, at the outset, and with the utmost respect, that I find your manners to be somewhat 'loutish' - I think is the best description.  You seem to think that you can dispense with any need to explain away that assemblage of incomprehensible 'argument' that I've summarised - by simply DEMANDING a REPLY to an elementary question.  And this - without any apparent requirement on your part to either address me or the arguments that you're so anxiously avoiding.  IF only ALL our problems could go away that easily.  If ONLY life could be that simple.  Indeed.  Because then we would all be able to forget that you ever put pen to that cascading slew of abused science, which is offered, as a sample of an utterly deluded mind.  OR.  Perhaps?  Were you depending on the fact that our own minds are that deluded that we'd readily engage in all that CONFUSION?  Were you trying MISDIRECT us?  Or have you, rather ponderously, assumed that you could USURP authority away from our GREATS and then simply rewrite science?

I think we'd all of us like to know.  IF, on the other hand you are trying, within the ambit of your rather poor aptitudes for either science or for any skills with some elementary social graces, you are simply trying to take the argument to another level - then that's a very good thing.  I would LOVE to engage in a discussion with you on the amount of negative voltage required to open or close a rather standard IRFPG50 MOSFET.  But ONLY in the context of our paper and my thesis.  And then too.  We'd need you to EXPLAIN the relevance of your question to this.  And with due respect, I would STRONGLY recommend that you apply some basic courtesies to this discussion.  Else everyone reading here will simply assume that you're a TROLL.  God forbid.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

[poynt99]

The question is quite clear and specific, and requires only a single word response from a selection of two possible answers.

The specific part of the question which you don't seem to understand, is the polarity required from Gate to Source to CLOSE the MOSFET switch.

So, which is your choice pertaining to the specific mentioned?

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?

[tak22]

 I'm not one of the three readers, but I read it like this:
Rosie gets asked a question and asks for a definition, gets a definition, and then after oodles of words plus a few
accusations and sidesteps thrown in for good measure, tosses it back unanswered with 'conditions' if it's to be pursued.
Normally questions aren't answered this way.
tak

[Rosemary Ainslie]

NO Poynty Point.  You CANNOT demand an over simplified answer - to anything at all - and certainly NOT out of context.  THAT will be construed as being UNREASONABLE.  It may be seen as GOADING.  We are NOT in a Court of Law where a prosecutor can DEMAND a yes or no answer to a question.

I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.  If you are simply repeating this question in the hopes of taking this discussion NOWHERE - then I'm afraid I'll close of this discussion and outline the OBVIOUS conclusions to be drawn from these tactics of yours.  What ABSURDITIES you indulge.  That you can solicit a response as REQUIRED?  IN ANY CONTEXT THAT YOU DEMAND? DO YOU WANT ME TO GET TECHNICAL?  And thereby BLUFF you all that I'm better qualified than I choose to represent myself.

Do you want me to say, for instance, that the differential voltage between the Gate and the Source would be positive with respect to the source pin.  And that the IRFPG50 has a maximum VGS limit of about 20 volts.  And that this limit is determined by the thickness of the gate oxide and it's dialetric properties that can then lower the threshold to about 2-4 volts?  WHAT DOES THAT DO TO ADVANCE ANYTHING AT ALL?  It is the PAPER that details our claim that we need to deal with POYNTY.  Or, alternatively, we can continue to discuss your own rather circuitous logic in that document that you repeatedly aver to.

The question is quite clear and specific, and requires only a single word response from a selection of two possible answers.

The specific part of the question which you don't seem to understand, is the polarity required from Gate to Source to CLOSE the MOSFET switch.

So, which is your choice pertaining to the specific mentioned?

POSITIVE, or NEGATIVE?

Regards,
Rosie Posie
ADDED