another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And MileHigh,

Provided only that you conceded that IF THERE ARE NO MISREADINGS and ERROR MEASUREMENTS - then our claim STANDS - then I'm happy.  A simple demonstration of this would then be all that's required.  Then we could all be happy.

You are trying to second guess what CANNOT be second guessed.  It needs hands on exposure and evaluation.  Why the HELL do you think that we're trying to get this to the academic forum?  It's precisely because all that precious evidence will be TRASHED if its survival depended on the 'opinion' of anonymous posters of dubious skills who are happy to DISMISS whatever they like - with or without an agenda and on grounds that have nothing to do with standard measurement protocols.

Science CAN ONLY BE PROGRESSED THROUGH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  That's all that matters.  And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  I'm hoping - soon - to get you a full comment from a technical expert who designs those machines.  Pro temp - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

And thanks for your input.  I mean that most sincerely.  It all helps the cause. 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie   

[poynt99]

And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

It is NOT impossible. It DEPENDS on the mode of operation. I alluded to the fact that the circuit can be operated in two slightly different modes; mode1 where Q2 is active, and Q1 not, and mode2 where Q1 is active and Q2 not. Mode1 is achieved by using a -5V to 0V pulse train on the FG, and mode2 by using a 0V to +5V pulse train on the FG.

IF the device is operated in mode2, (0V to +5V pulse, Q1 is active) then in fact the established current path is through the Q1 Source, and NOT the FG. The oscillation occurs when the FG is HI, or at +5V.

Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper. It's clearly stated that a NEGATIVE offset is used in the FG (mode1), but when FIG.'s 3 and 5 are examined, it is clear that about +8V is measured on the Q1 Gate in both, which means mode2 was actually used for the test.

In this case, the FG would not be providing that path, the path is through the Q1 Source when it is ON. BUT THERE IS A PATH ROSEMARY! It's through the Q1-S. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

May I propose that you just take a deep breath and LOOK AGAIN.  Take a look at the level of current enabled during the ON TIME of the duty cycle - when the applied signal at the gate of Q1 is POSITIVE and current flow is - under normal circumstances ENABLED.  For 18 seconds of each 180 seconds or thereby of each of those switching cycles - a positive signal is applied at the Gate of Q1.  During this time, notwithstanding the application of that positive signal, there is no current flow from the battery supply.  Here you need to refer to the Channel 1 (ORANGE TRACE) and look where at the current sits.  IT'S AT ZERO.  Again.  during this period when the applied signal is POSITIVE which would enable the flow of current - THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW FROM THE BATTERY.  Therefore the 'offset' setting is doing what it was meant to do.

Fig5 is a different kettle of fish.  An entirely different test.  Here the offset was adjusted to enable the flow of current during that 'on' period of each duty cycle.  Nothing surprising.  When the signal's applied it is INTENDED to ENABLE a short period of current flow from the battery.  This increases the level of dissipation at the element resistor.  Predictably.

I'll deal with the details in your post after this.
Rosemary

I'll try and download those screenshots.  WHY DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS?  WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT?  This is absolutely NOT the level of engagement that I expected.

[PhiChaser]

Rosemary,
You are indeed correct in that I don't really know what I'm referring to regarding your 'oscillation' so I respectfully withdraw from this conversation.
I agree, I am NOT qualified to argue how your circuit works (or why it works a certain way or why you have your 'oscillation').
There are others here who ARE qualified to do so. In trying to satisfy my curiosity, it seems I have reiterated Poynt99s 'point'. 
I will say that there were certain parts of your paper that sparked my imagination, and some things actually made a decent amount of sense. I liked your little drawings!
My statements about being blunt or rude were intended to convey that I hold no animosity or ill-will towards you (or anyone else here). Believe me, my posting was made after MORE research, NOT just taking someones word for it...
I see a stubborn person who refuses to accept (from any direction) that she just might be wrong.
I agree with you that forums like these can become a 'sesspool' at times, but I also think that there are those who frequent these places (like myself) who are curious about what is going on in the experimentalist/hobbyist/researcher/etc world and are looking around to find others with similar interests. 
I don't have a Ph.D. or M.A. (apparently you don't either) so how much am I (or you?) likely to be listened to in those 'other' more 'legitimate' types of discussion groups?? Certainly not as an equal. Since I don't have your expertise in electronics, I wouldn't consider myself your 'equal' so why would you deem listen to me, an uninformed observer in this one? I concede.
From your point of view we're all 'uninformed' when it comes to your circuit and your testing methods and your 'results'. Let's meet your colleagues and see your videos! I'm game. If they 'believe' in your results then they shouldn't have any fear of 'coming out' here... Lame excuse for no other 'collaborators' posting here...
So, as much as I'd like to repeat myself (like everyone else here apparently) ad nauseum, I will keep reading (and laughing) and learning, I will keep building and experimenting, and I will keep posting.
Just not on this particular thread.

Cheers!
Derrick

[Bubba1]

... And grammer

"grammer"?