another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OK, I see now the Drain rail is actually the battery +. "Drain Rail" is confusing when actually referring to the battery +, but I can work with it if necessary.

"Source Rail" is actually the FG-, agreed? At any rate, I can work with that if it makes it easier for you.

Ok.  That's good.  Because I know of no standard reference to that part of the circuit that is NOT at the drain.  And rail sort of qualifies it.  As opposed to the transistors' legs - in which case we simply refer to source or drain or S and D. 

Thanks,
Rosie

[poynt99]

Ok.  That's good.  Because I know of no standard reference to that part of the circuit that is NOT at the drain.  And rail sort of qualifies it.  As opposed to the transistors' legs - in which case we simply refer to source or drain or S and D. 

Thanks,
Rosie

Using "Drain Rail" is confusing because there is no direct connection to the battery from the Drains; the load resistor is in series. Since what you are referring to is actually the battery+ (B+) when you say "Drain Rail", then that is normally what it is called, "B+".

Regarding your request for comments, could I trouble you to condense your inquiries into a number of clear, concise, specific questions?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

We're 'teetering' here Poynty Point.  Can I ask you to grab onto this 'truce' with both hands and just hang in there?  Pro temp?  Let's see where this goes.

Using "Drain Rail" is confusing because there is no direct connection to the battery from the Drains; the load resistor is in series. Since what you are referring to is actually the battery+ (B+) when you say "Drain Rail", then that is normally what it is called, "B+".

You'll notice a general reluctance that I have in referring to any acronyms at all.  That's because it always takes an argument to some distance, some remove from perfect clarity.  But that's just me.  I've not had science training.  But there are also those readers here who also are not entirely schooled in scientific jargon.  So.  On the whole - I can live with your need for those terms.  But, I'll continue to describe the 'thing'.  It's only important that If you refer to B+ or B- that you allow me my preferred terms.  But you're right again.  Because it is perfectly logical to refer to the battery postive terminal and the battery negative terminal.  That's fine.  I'll pass on amending the references in that post - if you don't mind.

Regarding your request for comments, could I trouble you to condense your inquiries into a number of clear precise questions?

I'm not sure that there are any questions there?  I'm actually asking you to fault the comments.

Regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And while I'm at it.  Could I impose on you, Professor - to either come into this discussion - or to comment on the measurement protocols that have been applied in our paper?

For some reason you seem reluctant to engage here?  And, if you are prepared to evaluate our claim it would, perhaps, be as well to get familiar with the extent of the arguments.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Bubba1]

Rosemary:

I hate to interrupt, but I noticed your reply #273 directing people to your blog.  I read something on your blog that I could hardly believe.  From November 17, 2010:

"...This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started...."

Do you believe that standard theory says a light bulb should take up to half an hour to turn on?  I have managed to live my whole life (up to now) without hearing that one.
Seriously, a half hour?

Bubba1