another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

SRB is inquiring about and discussing Q1 and the issue of whether it can be active or not with a negative Gate voltage.

The way this is supposed to work Rosemary, is I inform SRB how it actually works (which happens to confirm his findings), then YOU try to defend YOUR awkward position on the matter.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Or maybe it was just the revers: a P channel, which is activated by a  -5 Volts...
P and N are nearly indistinguishable physically... They are all TO3 or TO220 look alike...

[Flux It]

Removed Q2 and negative pulsed Q1: as expected it does nothing...


Source code:



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 1.199999758805723E-7
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 -2.6 -2.5 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
o 14 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 16 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 16 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1


Don't know in real world mode what happen. Here I can't say something since I haven't tested (and I have over other work currently cannot test... )


SRM.

Try this not sure if its correct I just changed the trigger a bit-

circuit

[poynt99]

Or maybe it was just the revers: a P channel, which is activated by a  -5 Volts...
P and N are nearly indistinguishable physically... They are all TO3 or TO220 look alike...

Schubert, she's definitely using a N-channel MOSFET. P/N is IRFPG50. She just hasn't got a clue how they work, that's all.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Poynty Point,

Delighted to see your 'presumption of authority' on all matters related to our technology.  By the way - (BTW)     How goes it with that 'test' that you promised us?  I've just read through a sad liturgy on the annihilation of 'cold fusion' led by a certain Dr Vest.  It seems he had a 'vested interest' and I'm concerned that you and he share much in common.  If I can find it I'll post a link.  He too led the 'pack' against allowing any kind of respectable reference to a new and emerging technology.  The co-incidence goes further.  But I'll spare our three readers further reference.  LOL.  It may otherwise seem that I'm alerting them to some kind of an agenda.  And that would not be politic.

Now regarding this...

SRB is inquiring about and discussing Q1 and the issue of whether it can be active or not with a negative Gate voltage.

The way this is supposed to work Rosemary, is I inform SRB how it actually works (which happens to confirm his findings), then YOU try to defend YOUR awkward position on the matter.

I have nothing to defend other than experimental evidence.  And, as you know, experimental evidence always TRUMPS 'allegation' and 'presumption'.  Thank God.  Else science would be corrupted by all kinds of fraudulent claims.  Which brings me back to our Poynt.  Were these schematics and waveforms 'fruadulent'?  Surely not?  I'll attach as much of it as I can that our members can - perhaps - try this out for themselves.  It may be of interest. 

Kindest regards Poynty Point,
May the breeze blow softly at your back....

Rosie Posie.

PS (post script) I'll do the attachments in the next post.