another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok.  Hopefully I can conclude that tedious explanation of the properties in a simple N channel MOSFET and put MileHigh's - Poynty's - Professor's - Guyula's and everyone who subscribes to their argument - too many to list here - TO BED.

Now.  We're looking at a negative signal at that Gate of Q1.  And, conversely, we're looking at a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  And that positive signal is imposed on that gate of Q2 from the ground terminal of the signal generator.  In effect there is a small current imposed on that gap.  And your argument is that this then allows the current from the battery supply to cross over - piggy back a ride - directly from that gate signal to the source rail (battery negative).  Effectively the argument is that the circuit REMAINS CLOSED. 

IF this was indeed the case, then we would see a HUGE spike in the voltage across the switch, during this oscillation period, as the voltage from the battery supply would be sharing a path with this flow of current.  BUT NO ATTENDANT VOLTAGE IS EVIDENT - which was argued before.  But.  More to the point. The battery needs must first apply it's current to the drain Q2 drain - which then needs to cross that BRIDGE - Q2 gate - and THEN?  It needs to find its way to it's OWN source Q2 source - its OWN battery terminal negative.  Otherwise it will ASSUME that the circuit is still open.  And it would not discharge any current at all.

For some reason you are all ASSUMING that the battery needs only reference it's negative terminal - it's path to ground - across that bridge provided by the signal generator.  You forget that the signal generator itself is ONLY PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to that source rail or the battery's terminal THROUGH ITS OWN SIGNAL AND GROUND TERMINALS.  They are spatially SEPARATE. And what separates them is not only the resistance in the signal terminal - BUT ALSO - 1000 Ohms or thereby of resistance which applies that signal.  You are all - rather simplistically, I might add, assuming that the bridge is managed - across empty space.  LOOK AGAIN at the circuit.  The battery's connection at Q2 source is THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  There is absolutely NO OTHER CONNECTION.  That 'line' that you ASSUME is connecting Q2 gate to the battery negative - is ONLY enabling the signal - at the bridge - Q2 Gate.  It's there.  It's been PROVIDED for.  But it CANNOT BE CROSSED by the current from the battery supply - unless it sends its current across empty space, - unless it 'leap frogs' across about 4 inches of nothing at all - to reach its battery negative.  IT WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO CROSS that gap which is there on the CIRCUIT. It just cannot happen. 

Which means that it would then need to take that circuitous march through the signal's ground terminal through all that resistance in the machine itself - then through to the signal terminal itself - to get to back to it's own ground - that battery negative terminal.  Also highly improbable - as this would fry those delicate components.  I do hope that you see this.  You have all made a GROSS PRESUMPTION.  You have looked at a circuit line across two gates - and ASSUMED that this also connected the circuit apparatus.  You have ALL 'ERRORED' - to put it as Poynty puts it.  But I'm delighted to have this opportunity of putting you right.  It seems that those of us who are intellectually challenged - are still urgently required.  Else the simplicity of these components and their functions - will become unnecessarily and unduly snarled in erroneous assumptions that have nothing to do with the apparatus nor the tests at hand.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

It's quite fortunate Stefan that this thread only attracts a few readers;

The sort of gibberish and rubbish being posted here by Rosemary beggars belief!

Ok.  Hopefully I can conclude that tedious explanation of the properties in a simple N channel MOSFET and put MileHigh's - Poynty's - Professor's - Guyula's and everyone who subscribes to their argument - too many to list here - TO BED.

Now.  We're looking at a negative signal at that Gate of Q1.  And, conversely, we're looking at a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  And that positive signal is imposed on that gate of Q2 from the ground terminal of the signal generator.  In effect there is a small current imposed on that gap.  And your argument is that this then allows the current from the battery supply to cross over - piggy back a ride - directly from that gate signal to the source rail (battery negative).  Effectively the argument is that the circuit REMAINS CLOSED. 

IF this was indeed the case, then we would see a HUGE spike in the voltage across the switch, during this oscillation period, as the voltage from the battery supply would be sharing a path with this flow of current.  BUT NO ATTENDANT VOLTAGE IS EVIDENT - which was argued before.  But.  More to the point. The battery needs must first apply it's current to the drain Q2 drain - which then needs to cross that BRIDGE - Q2 gate - and THEN?  It needs to find its way to it's OWN source Q2 source - its OWN battery terminal negative.  Otherwise it will ASSUME that the circuit is still open.  And it would not discharge any current at all.

For some reason you are all ASSUMING that the battery needs only reference it's negative terminal - it's path to ground - across that bridge provided by the signal generator.  You forget that the signal generator itself is ONLY PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to that source rail or the battery's terminal THROUGH ITS OWN SIGNAL AND GROUND TERMINALS.  They are spatially SEPARATE. And what separates them is not only the resistance in the signal terminal - BUT ALSO - 1000 Ohms or thereby of resistance which applies that signal.  You are all - rather simplistically, I might add, assuming that the bridge is managed - across empty space.  LOOK AGAIN at the circuit.  The battery's connection at Q2 source is THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  There is absolutely NO OTHER CONNECTION.  That 'line' that you ASSUME is connecting Q2 gate to the battery negative - is ONLY enabling the signal - at the bridge - Q2 Gate.  It's there.  It's been PROVIDED for.  But it CANNOT BE CROSSED by the current from the battery supply - unless it sends its current across empty space, - unless it 'leap frogs' across about 4 inches of nothing at all - to reach its battery negative.  IT WOULD LITERALLY HAVE TO CROSS that gap which is there on the CIRCUIT. It just cannot happen. 

Which means that it would then need to take that circuitous march through the signal's ground terminal through all that resistance in the machine itself - then through to the signal terminal itself - to get to back to it's own ground - that battery negative terminal.  Also highly improbable - as this would fry those delicate components.  I do hope that you see this.  You have all made a GROSS PRESUMPTION.  You have looked at a circuit line across two gates - and ASSUMED that this also connected the circuit apparatus.  You have ALL 'ERRORED' - to put it as Poynty puts it.  But I'm delighted to have this opportunity of putting you right.  It seems that those of us who are intellectually challenged - are still urgently required.  Else the simplicity of these components and their functions - will become unnecessarily and unduly snarled in erroneous assumptions that have nothing to do with the apparatus nor the tests at hand.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

In fact, the BEST way to describe Rosemary's nonsensical posts, would be to use Rosemary's own words (she's now gone back and heavily edited the post to delete the following):

Nope.  There's absolutely no logical sequence or sense to anything you've written here.  I've given it my best shot.  It lacks clarity - sense - and reason.  On the whole it reads like a shoddy piece of propagandising - rendered ineffective as it leaves the reader confused.  You need to do better.

and

More of the same.  Just a confused mishmash of illogical nonsense.  No idea what you're referring to.  No idea what your complaint is.  No idea what you're on about.  Try using sense when you use the English language.  It's meant to be a tool to advance understanding.  Not to diminish it.

It's ironic that she was directing this at recent posters here. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It seems that I have not been clear.  Let me try this again.

My dear Poynty Point and MileHigh,

The source rail - that leg of Q2 that requires a DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE SOURCE or the NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY - is NOT connected to that SOURCE RAIL.  It is ONLY connected to the negative terminal of the function generator.  That negative terminal of the function generator is its only path back to the common SOURCE RAIL or battery negative terminal.  Its ONLY PATH back to that battery is THROUGH the function generator and then back through the signal terminal to the SOURCE.  They are SPATIALLY SEPARATED ON OUR APPARATUS BY A GOOD 4 inches.  There is NO OTHER PATH. 

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE BATTERY TO DISCHARGE ITS CURRENT DIRECTLY ONTO THE GATE OF THE Q2.  It REQUIRES A PASSAGE from the drain leg - ACROSS THE GATE LEG - then THROUGH THE SOURCE LEG.  It cannot BYPASS it's own SOURCE LEG.  JUST CAN'T BE DONE.  And it's source leg is FLOATING.  And IF it were to borrow the signal directly from the gate through the negative terminal - it would need to find it's path through the function generator to the signal probe.  There is no other access to the negative terminal of the battery. 

Therefore, that circuit is OPEN.  The battery simply CANNOT discharge current.  NOR DOES IT.  Check out those waveforms again.  NOW.  I KNOW it can't be done.  But the evidence supports this conclusion.  IT clearly is NOT happening.  LOOK AGAIN AT THOSE BLUE TRACES.  Then tell us all how it is that all that current can be discharged WITHOUT TAKING THE VOLTAGE WAVEFORM TO ANYTHING GREATER THAN ZERO?  LOOK AT THAT OSCILLATION.  It STAYS BELOW ZERO.  IT IS BARELY MORE THAN NOISE. Yet you're trying to argue that this switch is ON?

I am reminded of those many discussions between various members and your good selves - where you DENY the facts - REGARDLESS.  I trust that there are those readers here who are aware of this technique - where denial becomes the whole of the argument.  And scorn the method of it's delivery.  Neither are scientific.

Kindest regards nonetheless.
Rosie Pose
added the point that the voltage during the oscillating phase of the switching cycle - and across the switch - is barely more than noise. Which hardly speaks to the WILD voltage swings that are evident on that circuit.