another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

To turn off Q1, the generator output must be below the threshold voltage of Q1.  SImply stated, it must be at zero or a negative voltage.  That "zero" or "negative" voltage would then be indicated by the channel 3 scope traces.  The channel 3 scope traces indicate that Q1 has to be turning on, as its gate voltage is well in excess of its threshold voltage.  The Rshunt channel says that Q1 is not turning on in Test 1 and Test3 as it should/must do as per its indicated gate drive.

If you have no explanation, than just say so.  And please do "ask around".  I think all with a basic understanding of the operation of a MOSFET will have to agree that something is wrong with Q1, the schematic, the scope shots or something, because Q1 is not turning on in these two tests when indeed it should.  It is performing exactly as one would predict in Test 2, and the scope depicts the expected data.

PW

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

To turn off Q1, the generator output must be below the threshold voltage of Q1.  SImply stated, it must be at zero or a negative voltage.  That "zero" or "negative" voltage would then be indicated by the channel 3 scope traces.  The channel 3 scope traces indicate that Q1 has to be turning on, as its gate voltage is well in excess of its threshold voltage.  The Rshunt channel says that Q1 is not turning on in Test 1 and Test3 as it should/must do as per its indicated gate drive.

If you have no explanation, than just say so.  And please do "ask around".  I think all with a basic understanding of the operation of a MOSFET will have to agree that something is wrong with Q1, the schematic, the scope shots or something, because Q1 is not turning on in these two tests when indeed it should.  It is performing exactly as one would predict in Test 2, and the scope depicts the expected data.

PW

My dear picowatt

This is the 7th time that you have posted this same question with an over reliance on certain assumptions that you have made which I shall be at some pains to dispel during the course of the day.  This night alone there have been a total of 42 new posts to this thread which would require me to have the typing and reading speeds of superwoman - to address.  Added to which you actually - during the rather repetitious demands to have this question answered - even complained, rather rudely that I'm 'ignoring' your question.  I've only just read THAT post and it seems that you consider me guilty of only answering this same question only three times - with varying levels of failure. 

I assure you that the offset of most signal generators are well able to restrict the flow of current.  I've now taken the trouble to check some wiki references to this.  Perhaps you could take the trouble yourself.  I will, however - make sure that I get this confirmed by an acknowledged expert - if I can manage it during the course of the day.  And then I will indeed get back to you.  With pleasure.  The applied signal at the gate is as shown.  The applied signal from the offset overrides it.  But let me get this confirmed.  In which case I've answered you at the first answer.  And it seems that you have managed - together with our other three members here - to expand this thread by another 4 pages or so with some rather repetitious posts.  I was rather hoping that at least you were both impartial and polite.  It seems not.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys lest this post of mine fall out of focus let me get this back on the table.

Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW

Picowatt - it is a truth that this circuit was both developed and demonstrated rather extensively at one of our local colleges.  It had the hands on input and advice from some highly skilled people - but unfortunately none in power engineering.  If there were an explanation then it would, by now, have been to hand.  There was a serious proposal to 'disprove' our claim which will, eventually be required.  And when and if we either get this comprehensively demonstrated with the involvement of academics or alternatively when we get this paper published with review - then I will certainly advance this apparatus to them.

Meanwhile we are relying on the well established scientific protocols that allow a claim to be thoroughly investigated and researched which can only happen with impartial and judicious consideration of the facts that have been put forward.  And with as wide an engagement of replicators - as possible.  We are all well aware of the unfortunate consequences to a debunk as applied to our poor Fleischmann and Pons who were the unhappy victims of some rather excessive denials that have, subsequently, had to be withdrawn.  And while they were the victims - much more seriously compromised were our global interests related to the urgent need for new energy sources.  In the same way TinselKoala and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh have been denying our own claim based on the wrong references and on their badly applied, so called, replications.  TK hasn't even noticed the issues.  If he has he's been to some lengths not to reference them.

And it is absolutely immaterial what their opinion of my abilities are.  I am only anxious to get all our claims thoroughly tested and demonstrated and proven.  But then I rely on some attention to our actual claim and not the assumptions related to our claim.  As that would, indeed, be a waste of everyone's time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly MileHigh

Rosemary:

At this point I can't really be bothered to respond in detail to your last two postings to me.  When you get high-strung in your responses and start accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about it's a sure sign that you are totally stressed out over your proposition.

Everything I said I stand by.  Your histrionics in your postings to me are rooted in the fact that you can't understand my technical points about your circuit.

I am satisfied that I have proved that you completely pulled the wool over your own eyes and spent months and months analyzing a circuit that in fact was not doing what you thought it was doing.

If I had magically appeared in your lab while your testing was going on it would have taken me a maximum of a few days to understand your circuit,undo all of the false assumptions, and redo the measurements and show you the truth.  You would have been dumbstruck.

MileHigh

I love your assumptions.  They're all delivered with a reckless freedom of fact and a wild application of fantasy.  I pride myself on NOT being emotionally concerned about these posts by you trolls.  Believe me I welcome them all.  I would have LOVED to see some technical issues raised.  I keep hoping.  I am glad that you believe that you or I have pulled the wool over yours/my eyes.  And I'm REALLY sorry that you can't magically appear in our lab while we're testing.  That would have been nice.  Considering how far you can project into space - couldn't you at least try and reach across our Atlantic?  As I see it there's not that much more that's separating us.  Then you could deliver your explanations and then too I would be 'dumbstruck'.  How nice would that be?

Rosie Pose

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

I did not intend to come off rude.  In between posting I am machining parts on the lathe whilst checking on some client circuits that are burning in on the bench.

I asked three simple yes or no questions and received no direct answer to them.  It is frustrating.  If you want replicators to take the time to replicate your circuit, or evaluators to evaluate, it seems only fair that we be allowed to ask you questions and should expect to receive direct answers to those questions.

For the umteenth time, I fully understand that you can set the FG output to a positive value to turn on Q1 and turn off Q2-5 or alternately set the FG for a negative voltage to turn off Q1 and bias Q2-Q5 ito inear operation.

What I am asking about is why the Test1 and 2 scope shots reflect that the generator is outputting a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 gate threshold while the Rshunt traces for those tests indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  All is as it should be with Test2.

PW