another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

My dear TinselKoala
I do not need your permission to test.  Nor do I need to use your test parameters.  My only concern is that I'd be anxious to not only see the conclusion to your test but some evidence that you've EVER actually tested our circuit.  And then I'd like to have some kind of access to this 'report' that you tell us has been made available?  Could you provide a link?

Regards,
Rosie Pose

No, Rosie, all you need to do is TEST, somehow or other. But we know you aren't going to, and you will blame me for it. But how can I POSSIBLY be preventing you from testing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

Please let me know if you do not intend to answer any of my questions directly.  I will stop asking.

I was glad you showed up tonight as I hoped you would discuss the Q1 issue with me.

Trust me, I fully understand the operation of my eight function and programmable waveform generators as well as all my other signal sources (pulse, sine, RF and HD vid).

I also fully understand that if apply a zero or negative voltage to the gate of Q1 relative to its source, Q1 will not turn on.  But I also understand that my scope channel connected to the gate of Q1 will show that my generator is applying a zero or negative voltage to the gate of Q1.

The scope shots for Test 1 and Test 2 do not show this.  They show a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 threshold voltage and Q1 should/must turn on.  The Rshunt channel does not reflect this.  It can only be an error.

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

It is also a truth that when the scope shots indicate that the gate voltage applied to Q1 is positive, Q1 should turn on.

What do you want me to comment on?  All I know is that the 'offset' is able to override the applied signal to frustrate the delivery of current in its entirety.  If and when you replicate you will see that your own signal generator should have the same 'function'.  I am not sure how this is managed.  Only that it is indeed - manageable.  And with all the hands on involvement of those many many experts in this technology - you are absolutely the very first person to find this to be a discrepancy.  I simply can't argue.  I'll try and find out - during the course of the day - if this is indeed an exceptional event.  But I assure you that no-one before you has even mentioned the fact.  Therefore my assumption has always been that this is precisely why that function was included in the first place.  In other words it determines the amount of applied current from the source by imposing an opposite signal to the applied energy source - with a varying and optional level of that amount.

As the inventor and claimant, I would think this simple fact would merit more discussion from you than the answers given.  I am not discussing your claim, the oscillations, the battery charging, or anything nearly that "complex".  I am for now only simply focused on why Q1 turns on properly in one of three tests and not two others.

Again.  It is simply the rather prosaic application of the 'offset' adjustment applied by function generator.  I have no other explanation.  I can adjust that offset through an extensive range to restrict or allow the flow from the supply. 

The simple fact is that the scope shots are saying that in Test 1 and Test 3 the gate drive indicated is more than sufficient to turn on Q1.  The Rshunt channel is showing that Q1 is not turning on.  This cannot be.

Same question - same answer.  Sorry.  I'll see if I can do better by asking around. 

I am not trying to debunk anything, I am trying to read your paper.  Schematics and scope shots are read by the likes of me as is text by most everyone.

The only possible explanation I can arrive at as to why Q1 is not turning on, if the schematic and scope shots are indeed correct, is that Q1 is defective or has been inadvertantly disconnected during the two tests in question.

I assure you that they are not.  The transistors have not been compromised - in any way at all.

Picowatt.  When you test this you'll see it for yourself.  I have always understood that this overriding function of the 'offset' was widely understood and widely applied.  I assure you our papers have been vetted by some highly esteemed academics.  If I didn't know it would compromise their reputations by association - I'd even mention which.  And no-one - at all - has questioned this aspect of the test.  What's significant is that notwithstanding this restriction to the flow of current we are able to generate that oscillation at all.  I would have thought?

Anyway.  I'll get back when I know better how to answer you here.  Right now I have absolutely no idea why you're surprised at this.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Look... she is able to hook her probes up to this circuit without placing them on or near junctions, she says. That can only mean that there ARE no junctions.... a neat trick.

And, by some "offset button" magic, her function generator is able to make a gate drive trace on the oscilloscope that is DIFFERENT from what the mosfet it is driving is seeing, even though the mosfet, the FG, and the probe leads are all hooked up at the same JUNCTIONS.

Or, alternatively... it means that she is once again just making stuff up out of her head.

[MileHigh]

Again.  It is simply the rather prosaic application of the 'offset' adjustment applied by function generator.  I have no other explanation.  I can adjust that offset through an extensive range to restrict or allow the flow from the supply. 

Guppies in a fishbowl.