Howdy everyone,

I see all Rosemary's accredited academics, engineers, professors and experimentalist that have personally witnessed or verified proof of the COP>INFINITY device claim backing up all the data that was submitted for review are just lining up to post at Rosemary's new forum that's been up for ages now it seems like. I can see from all their countless comments on Rosemary's postings agreeing with every aspect of her THESIS using the crystal ball prediction method through magic mosfet devices that she has engineered around said claims. We all should shake our heads in wonderment on the accredited academics, engineers, professors and experimentalist with the experimental expertise, professionalism and backgrounds in the verifiable documented claims they've made. 

As you can see there is a pattern here with the secret images I'm posting, showing plain as day the overwhelming statistics of accomplishments Rosemary has toward her goals, whatever they are.  


FTC

Only seven posters in the top ten.

That is nearly the funniest thing I've seen all evening.

Yet another misquote or misrepresentation:


"If - as picowatt recommends - there's a 'relatively' negative signal applied to the gate as a result of the Q2's gate's connection to Q1 source and/or to the negative rail of the battery (they're effectively in series) then - seemingly -  that negative will repel the positive flow of current from the battery?  Surely?  Or is the proposal being made that the signal is that small that it doesn't restrict the clockwise flow of current? I'm open to advice her"



There is a relatively POSITIVE signal applied to the gate of Q2 by applying an ACTUALLY negative signal to the source of Q2. 

Q1 has nothing to do with turning on Q2, so quit discussing it as if it does.  Q2 will turn on and oscillate just fine if Q1 is removed from the circuit.  FIG3, FIG7,  .99's sims and TK's work all prove this.  For now, just ignore Q1 as if it were not there, until you understand how Q2 is turned on  Also, forget about the oscillations for now and just just focus on the DC conditions that occur when Q2 is biased on.  Oscillations and AC can be considered later.

Read the bold text below several times until it sinks in, this seems to be where you are having a problem.  Try reading each statement slowly, over and over, until you understand what is being said in each.

ANY N-channel MOSFET can be turned on by making the gate terminal more positive than the source terminal.  Stated otherwise, the GATE terminal needs only to be positive RELATIVE TO the SOURCE terminal to turn on the MOSFET

If the SOURCE terminal is held at GROUND potential and a POSITIVE voltage applied to the GATE terminal, the gate is positive with respect to the source and the MOSFET will turn on.  (This is how Q1 is wired and turned on.)

If the GATE terminal is held at GROUND potential and a NEGATIVE voltage applied to the SOURCE terminal, the gate is again positive with respect to the source and the MOSFET will turn on.  (This is how Q2 is wired and turned on.)

Both of the above scenarios will turn on a MOSFET.  As long as the gate is positive RELATIVE TO the source, it will turn on.

Making the GATE more POSITIVE than the SOURCE will turn on a MOSFET.  Making the SOURCE more NEGATIVE than the GATE will also turn on a MOSFET.  In both instances, the gate is being made positive RELATIVE to the source.


In response to your "repel" comment:

In the NERD circuit, when the FG output is a negative voltage, the FG is acting identically to, and can be replaced by, a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor.

A twelve volt battery with its "plus" terminal attached to the CSR represents the FG's signal common attachment to the CSR.

A 50 ohm resistor between the twelve volt battery's "negative" terminal and the source terminal of Q2 represents the FG's output connection.

When Q2 is biased on, the plus terminal of the main battery stack is connected, thru Rload and Q2, to the negative terminal of the twelve volt battery representing the FG via the series 50 ohm resistor.

There is no "repel" as you say.  In the series string of batteries making up the main circuit battery, the plus terminal of a battery is connected to the minus terminal of the next battery in the string.  Again, there is no "repel" as you say.

In the above example wherein the FG was replaced by a battery in series with a 50 ohm resistor, when Q2 is biased partially on, the "clockwise flow" is from the main battery plus terminal, thru Rload, thru Q2, thru the 50 ohm resistor to the minus terminal of the battery replacing the FG, out that battery's plus terminal, thru the CSR and and to the main battery minus terminal.

When the FG output is a negative voltage, the FG is merely acting as an additional battery in series with the main batteries.  The 50 ohm resistor in series with the FG output limits the amount of DC current that can flow thru Q2 and the FG to the CSR.

 

ADDED:  Before you fly off the handle with a non-sensical response incorporating the words "ridiculous" or "joke", read the bold text until you fully understand what is being said in each statement.  Do so for days if necessary!  The bold text states what everyone has been saying for months upon months, including .99's recent Ms. Gate and Mr. Source story.  You must understand what is being said in bold before any other aspect of the circuit's operation can be grasped.  The text in bold is undeniable fact.

For once, try your damnest to understand it, not argue against it!!

ADDED:  Just think a bit.  The statements in bold are inarguable facts, there is not an EE or MOSFET manufacturer on this planet that would in any way argue these statements to be untrue.  MOSFETs have been incorporated into circuitry for years using the facts in the bold statements.

Therefore, if you disagree with any of them, you are either in the very smallest of minorities, or you just do not yet understand what the statements are saying.  Which is more likely?

Read them until you understand what is being said.

 

 

The FG's "negative" or black lead must have been hooked directly to the battery negative, the common circuit ground, for all of the experiments and demonstrations, because that was the way the apparatus was constructed. There is no evidence whatsoever that she had the FG's black lead in the correct location for any of the reported trials, and the evidence we DO have... the video of the demonstration... clearly shows it connected to the common circuit ground, the battery negative.