another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

It would be much more feasible to utilize the nomenclature and reference designators as shown on your diagram when discussing your circuit. Agreed?

For example, please only use the word "Source" when referring to that terminal of the MOSFET. There is no "common source".

FG- is certainly a valid reference, as it is also shown on your diagram this way. "FG" means "Function Generator", agreed?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It would be much more feasible to utilize the nomenclature and reference designators as shown on your diagram when discussing your circuit. Agreed?

For example, please only use the word "Source" when referring to that terminal of the MOSFET. There is no "common source".

FG- is certainly a valid reference, as it is also shown on your diagram this way. "FG" means "Function Generator", agreed?

i use the word 'source' as it's applicable.  Source is designated as one of the legs of those MOSFETs.  it is ALSO standard reference to that part of the circuit that is connected to the negative terminal of the battery supply - behind the switch.  As opposed to the Drain rail that described that part of the circuit that is connected to the positive terminal of the battery supply - in front of the switch.

I grant you one thing though.  However else I've used it - it patently was not clear to you.  But HOPEFULLY.  It now is.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Poynty,

Let me put you out of your misery regarding that OU claim.  I FREELY CONFESS that my only intention at claiming it at all was to force you to argue the paper and our evidence.  I was more than a little tired of the running commentary on both your forum and that hate blog that you subscribe to - where - regardless of those atrocious insults against me and my good name - is the clear REFUSAL to acknowledge the anomalies that are clearly and unarguably evident in BOTH OUR TESTS.  Had there been any acknowledgement of the fact that there were questions still to be answered - then this may have encouraged you to LOOK DEEPER.  But your overriding anxiety was to REJECT THE CLAIM OUTRIGHT. WHY?  IF there is some kind of evidence - however marginal - then one would expect a thorough investigation.  Instead of which?  All that abuse?  What gives?  It's very probable that I'm as intellectually challenged as you allege.  But I have a more than adequate working knowledge of the basics of physics.  Courtesy some really excellent literature on a conceptual understanding of this.  And especially as it relates to the electromagnetic interaction.  So?  Why the need to paint me more stupid than I actually am?  Is that part of your agenda?  And tell us.  What is that agenda?  Why is it necessary to not only reject a claim - but to then resort to such liberal abuse of that claimant.  Why do you need to parade a knowledge that you actually don't appear to have - in order to diminish my own credibility?  WHY THE ATTACK?  It's not more nor less than the scorn you apply to everyone who dares challenge our physical paradigms.  Personally I'm now prepared to fight it at every level that I can.  And I assure you it's been a struggle.  TIMES HAVE CHANGED.  WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

My ONLY interest is in progressing field theory.  But to get there I was ASSURED by some weighty academic physicists - that I would first have to offer some kind of anomalous result to PROVE some kind of merit in that model.  I've been touting that proof around for 13 years now and I ASSURE YOU - there is absolutely not 1 ACADEMIC EXPERT who has come to the table to evaluate that evidence.  The good news is that the application of my technology is NO LONGER CRITICAL.  I am entirely satisfied that Andrea Rossi has taken the pressure off the immediate need for those applications.  His solutions are BRILLIANT.  Our own nowhere NEAR developed enough.  BUT.  I still have that model and I still need to share it.  And it helps not me nor anyone at all - that you try to bulldoze a DENIAL without due consideration.  The more so as - for once on these forums - there's an entirely adequate paper detailing all the results as REQUIRED.  That's been sorely lacking.

You've got a lot to explain Poynty.

Regards,
Rosemary

another edit.  It never stops.  'of' to 'off'.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - it seems that I owe you an apology. 

I've just read through the most of my posts and it appears that I use the word source and source rail interchangeably.  I've variously spoken a whole lot of nonsense with respect to the ss dd gg number - which, for the life of me I can't understand what I meant.  I must concede that there is not ALWAYS sufficient clarity in my writing. No doubt there's plenty room for improvement.

One of our collaborators has assured me that one can refer to the supply source and then the term RAIL ALWAYS needs to be qualified against the terms source and drain.  Else one must specify MOSFET SOURCE QG - as you do.  More often than not I've referred to source rail - when I meant the source leg of the 'FET.  So.  I own up.  My terminology has not been as precise as required.  Abject apologies.

Regards,
Rosemary

lol  Had to edit those references AGAIN. 

and I see that you've all done some serious editing on that hate blog.      Nice to see the more aggressive posts deleted.  A little more editing and you'd have it very well cleaned.  Was there a complaint?   

[poynt99]

No need to apologize Rosemary.

My only hope is that if you wish to have a productive discussion about your circuit, we can "talk the same language" and agree in terms of how the circuit is connected, what the various points in the circuit are "named", and what the polarity is across the FG.

Until we do, it would be extremely difficult for me to answer any of YOUR questions, because I would not understand exactly what you are asking.

So, can we agree to properly use the nomenclature as denoted on YOUR schematic?