another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Alternatively, if you are proposing that anything up to and including the flow of 5 amps of current from the battery supply can breach more than of 1000K's of resistance in the signal generator to present itself at the signal terminal and then ALSO - simply IGNORE the applied negative signal at that terminal - AGAIN. YOU'D BE RIGHT.

There are no "1000k's of resistance" looking into the output port of the FG. In fact it is a mere 50 Ohms. If you would like, I can post a schematic of the output portion of that FG which clearly shows 50 Ohms of resistance on its output. So from there, the AC impedance to ground is quite low; on the order of 0.1 Ohms. So the total AC impedance to the ground terminal of the FG is about 50 Ohms, looking in to the output. This AC impedance to ground is the path for the oscillation.

And Rosemary, stop harping on the notion that ANYONE is accusing the instruments of failing to measure correctly; you've been advised several times that it is NOT the instruments that are at fault, it is the operators of the instrument.

Now, let's put to bed this issue of the oscillation and which MOSFET is responsible. The only salient issue is that there IS an oscillation, we can all agree on that. HOW that oscillation is achieved is not important. You've even said it yourself, normally this type of oscillation is an annoyance to designers, and it is to be avoided. So it is not a novel discovery of any sort, MOSFETs are notorious for oscillating, especially when operated in their linear range.

The thrust of the problem is HOW you made your battery voltage measurement. Specifically, WHERE you placed the scope probe. It is NOT correct. That's been clearly proven several times. Now, you say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt.99

HOW you have the bald faced temerity to advise ME or anyone at all - that our probes are POSITIONED incorrectly - when we HAVE shown you that the position of those probes CAN BE PLACED PRECISELY ON THE BATTERY TERMINALS - THAT IT MAKES NOT ONE IOTA OF DIFFERENCE TO THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THAT OSCILLATION.  We have done downloads of this THIS VERY POINT.  And I've explained that we can prove this on a circuit that ONLY has one MOSFET and ONLY one battery with the probes AGAIN positioned - this time on the one and only battery used as a supply source.

Is this all it takes?  To promote a disinformation program?  IGNORE the counter arguments - IGNORE the proof - IGNORE the statements - and just keep on and on and on - plugging the same RIDICULOUS points - where the sheer repetition will eventually carry the argument? I absolutely WILL NOT ANSWER ANOTHER POST THAT RELATES TO THESE OBJECTIONS.  It is impossible to keep on keeping on saying the same thing.  I've just taken a look back on this thread.  I've been saying this for the last 5 pages - possibly more.


FINALLY.  It is impossible to 'draw the wrong conclusions' from those instruments as you are trying to imply. UNLESS the probes are  inappropriately attenuated or unless they were incorrectly positioned.  AND THEY ARE NOT.   One does not need to get a degree in electronics in order to find out how to work those oscilloscopes.  They're USER FRIENDLY.  Quite apart from which you are also supposing that NONE OF THE COLLABORATORS are competent to take a measurement.  And that falls into the category of traducement and slander.  I AM DONE WITH ARGUING THIS.

Rosemary

EDITED
I removed that rant that is due to get an EXPERT's comment related to the proposed corruption that is enabled by the signal probe.   The rest of this post stands.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now, Poynt.99 and Professor Steven E Jones,

A simple demonstration of this technology is actually all that is required to prove what we here CLAIM.  We are MORE THAN HAPPY to include the test where we generate the oscillation with the use of only 1 MOSFET and only 1 battery.  That puts the objection to bed related to the positioning of those oscilloscope probes - and this rather outlandish claim where you seem to think that the battery supply is able to chase it's tail through an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.

Let me know your thoughts related to a demonstration.  Subject only to this, and to the time required to get these tests up and running and the time when the collaborators would be available - then we're ready to roll.  I think a month from today would be a realistic target.
 
Kind regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt.

Here is a detail of what is happening at the signal terminal of the function generator - during the period that the circuit if OPEN.  Kindly NOTE that the blue trace is the ACTUAL APPLIED VOLTAGE AT BOTH THE SIGNAL TERMINAL AND ITS GROUND.  Where is there any evidence here that this voltage is able to support the flow of upwards of 5 amps.  Because that blue trace DETAIL waveform is evident in EVERY SINGLE OSCILLATION - no matter the setting.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

You've not answered this salient question:

You say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?