another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Do you see? She makes a bunch of bunkum statements about me or my work that are DEMONSTRABLY WRONG, like the wire color coding or the JT hookups, or a dozen others, and when she is refuted she just makes a page of irrelevant verbiage to bury her errors and hope that nobody notices that she was WRONG YET AGAIN.

Got a coherent answer for picowatt yet, Rosie Poser? No, of course not. You have, in addition to magic mosfets, a magic function generator offset knob too. At least when I see an anomalous instrument reading, like my low resistance input figure from last night, I recognize it and track down the source of the reading, and admit when I've got a damaged component. YOU just take all your instrumental readings at face value since you don't understand them anyway.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

PW and Rosemary,

May I interject in your exchange?

FTC and TK have shown that there is a discrepancy in the circuit schematics in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf and ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf.

In the former, Q1 is labeled as the right MOSFET. In the latter, Q1 is labeled as the left MOSFET.

Rosemary, which diagram indicates the correct positions for Q1 and Q2-5 relating to the claim?

The circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf, or the circuit shown in ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf?

Hi Poynty.   It makes not a blind bit of difference as it comes to the same thing.  But the Q2 on the right of the schematic has been corrected and replaced on the left on a corrected paper submitted for review.  This was pointed out by the editor and corrected.  But either way - as TK has shown - it gives precisely the same result.

Thanks Poynty - if you can correct the copy on your published - then do so.  If not - it really doesn't matter.  It doesn't constitute a misrepresentation - but an erroneous transposition - as picowatt explained.

Kindest regards,
Rosie 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear TK

are you STILL insinuating that we're using the scope in AC mode?

Rosie Poser

[picowatt]

@.99,

Please do interject when you can!  I have been operating under the assumption that Q1 is the single common source configured MOSFET and that Q2 (or Q2-Q5) are the common gate configured "parallel array" MOSFETS.

I do not know if you have read thru all this, my condolences if you have, but specifically, I was asking about an apparent discrepancy in the first paper Test 1-3 scope shots.

Referring to the first paper, in Fig 3/Test 1 and Fig 6/Test3 the scope shots seem to indicate that during the positive voltage portion of the FG output, there is more than sufficient gate voltage applied to Q1 to turn it on, but the Rshunt trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.

In Fig 5/Test 2, the indicated gate drive as well as the indicated current thru Rshunt are in very good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet and in this test, Q1 operates as one would expect and predict.

I can only assume that Q1 was defective or somehow disconnected in test 1 and 3 as per the data provided from the scope shots.

Any comments from you with an alternate explanation would be most welcome.

PW

[picowatt]

@TK,

I was really hoping your new video would be an "FG 101" vid, with just the FG connected via a BNC to a DC scope channel while tweaking the offset control, with or without a waveform present.  This to demo that the scope will indeed indicate/reflect the setting/action of the FG's offset control.

PW